The five-judge constitution bench is headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
New Delhi:
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a series of pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages. Are two spouses belonging to a binary gender essential to marriage, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked while hearing arguments today. “We see this one [same-sex] relationships not just as physical relationships, but more like a stable, emotional relationship,” Judge Chandrachud said on the third day of the hearing by a five-judge bench that will be streamed live on the court’s website and YouTube.
On Wednesday, the top court stressed the need to bring the case to a timely conclusion, saying there are other cases waiting to be heard.
The five-judge constitution bench is headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud.
The Center has urged the Supreme Court that all states and territories of the Union become parties to the proceedings on the pleas for legal validation of same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court had last year requested a response from the Center to separate pleas from two gay couples seeking to enforce their right to marry and order the concerned authorities to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.
Here are the live updates on the Supreme Court hearing on same-sex marriage:
Get NewsMadura updatesEnable notifications for receive alerts as this story develops.
“People are moving away from the idea that you have to have a boy”: Chief Justice
Chief Justice: “Even popular countries like China are losing on demographic dividends. The young, highly educated don’t want children – it’s a matter of choice. People are moving away from the idea that you have to have a boy.”
Chief Justice: “There are no absolutes, as I said, even at the risk of being made fun of… And what happens if there is a heterosexual couple and the child sees domestic violence? Will that child grow up in a normal atmosphere? Of a father who becomes an alcoholic, comes home and beats the mother every night and asks for money for alcohol.”
- “We see this one [same-sex] relationships not just as physical relationships, but more like a stable, emotional relationship.”
- “[Legalising same-sex marriage] requires us to redefine the evolving idea of marriage. For is the existence of two spouses belonging to a binary gender a necessary condition for marriage?”
- “And by decriminalizing homosexuality, not only are we recognizing treating relationships between consenting adults of the same sex, but we’ve also recognized that people of the same sex would even have a stable relationship.”
“Are Binary Spouses Essential?”: Chief Justice
Are two spouses belonging to a binary gender essential for marriage, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud asked when he heard arguments about legalizing same-sex marriages. “We see this one [same-sex] relationships not just as physical relationships, but more like a stable, emotional relationship,” Judge Chandrachud said on the third day of the hearing by a five-judge bench that will be streamed live on the court’s website and YouTube.
- Chief Justice Chandrachud: And in the last 69 years, our law has really evolved. When you decriminalize homosexuality, you also realize that these are not one-time relationships, these are also stable relationships.
- Our premise is that when the legislation came into effect in 1954, the purpose of the legislation was to provide a form of marriage for people who do not fall back on their personal laws.
- And by decriminalizing homosexuality, not only are we recognizing treating relationships between consenting adults of the same sex, but we’ve also recognized that people of the same sex would even have a stable relationship.
The ultimate guideline is the intent of the statute, no; text of the statutes, no; parliamentary common purpose understanding, no; but the ability to achieve a result that conforms to the conventions, says AM Singhvi.
So intent, legal text, and now we have a third test: “important fundamental rights,” he adds
The second thing that is not decisive is the legal text. It is very interesting that an English court says this – AM Singhvi
“Parliamentary intent is not the touchstone” – this is another red herring your lordships may face in this matter,” adds AM Singhvi.
AM Singhvi: The legal core of this case is interpretation. It is suitable for courts to read into words to bring the statute convention into line. A judge can change the meaning and thus both primary and secondary law.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud: We are going to hear Mr. Singhvi. Dr. Singhvi, around 12:30 PM.
AM Singhvi: Count my 45 minutes when I start.
Chief Justice DY Chandrachud: Okay, your time starts now.
Chief Justice Chandrachud to Solicitor General Tushar Mehta: Have we ever been unreasonable in this court?
SG: No, sir. Thank you
AM Singhvi appears before one of the petitioners.
The Center has urged the Supreme Court that all states and territories of the Union become parties to the proceedings on the pleas for legal validation of same-sex marriages.
The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on a series of pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages. On Wednesday, the top court stressed the need to bring the case to a timely conclusion, saying there are other cases waiting to be heard.
