Thread by @LawBeatInd

A Constitution bench will hear petitions seeking recognition of marriages between same sex today.

#SupremeCourt

On the last date of hearing, Supreme Court deliberated on whether social security can be met out to same sex couples. The Chief Justice of India was engaging in a riveting exchange with the Solicitor General of India

lawbeat.in/top-stories/sa…

Supreme Court's hearing on same sex marriage is expected to proceed with the following line up of Senior Lawyers, appearing for the Respondents. Currently, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta is arguing for the Union of India. #SupremeCourt

BREAKING: Union of India says that in terms of last hearings’ exchange wherein a possibility of social security measures for same sex couples was extrapolated, the Centre has decided to set up a committee to look into the possibility

Senior Advocate Maneka Guruswamy says that only a marriage can provide the requisite social security net and is of the opinion that this may not be the best course of action

Dr Singhvi says that setting up a committee for looking to social security measures for same sex couples is fine but it will require substantive tweaking and not just administrative

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal says that there is a consensus amongst the LGBTQIA+ community that they want to get married. “The parents say they want their children to get married. Why should we be second class citizens? Earlier we were criminals!” @KirpalSaurabh

Kirpal: We understand we can’t get everything but section 4 recognition of marriage must be given.

Guruswamy: Young people in our country want marriage in smallest of towns. I am not saying this as an elite lawyer. I don’t want them to go through what we did.

#CJI: Problematic argument about feelings. We cannot go by popular and segmental morality. We have to go by constitutional morality. So we cannot go by feelings of young people (in the LGBTQIA+ community)

Justice Ravindra Bhat: You are much aware of history. Please don’t consider this the end of the battle or a quietus. You should look at it positively (setting up committee to look at social security net)

Guruswamy: In USA, after the declaration; they sat down and completely… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

#CJI: I think there is an area which the court can go into. I see from your arguments Solicitor is that same sex couples can cohabit. And we have understood that something may be conjured up from that lens

SG now at podium, begins his arguments.
“State issued step into marriages only when state felt there is a need to regulate. Because issues such as maintenance, divorce, custody, reasons for divorce had to be stipulated”

SG: Marriage being a fundamental right disseminates from two judgments. One of the cases was where a Hindu girl converted to Islam to marry a muslim boy. Court said she had the right to marry. But never was marriage looked at from a non-heterosexual lens. It did not simply… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

SG reads excerpt from judgment Shafin Jehan. His argument centres around the fact that relationships are not necessarily regulated by state actors.

SG now reading judgments (international) to state that marriage was always intended to be between opposite sexes.

SG completes submissions.

SG: I forgot to tell the bench that Mr Kapil Sibal had called me in the morning to convey that he is slightly under the weather. His absence may please be excused.

Attorney General for India R. Venkatramani argues: The court has to essentially entertain issues and take holistic views of cases. But what the executive can do and what the parliament can do - the lines are clearly drawn. If not paid heed to, consequences will follow

Court will resume after lunch.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for state of Madhya Pradesh: Don’t dilute status of Special Marriage Act & create boil in the society. It was envisaged to be a heterosexual marriage.

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi: India is not attuned to cultural revolution that too with jurisprudence. We are attuned to revolution. China tried, failed & so did Russia. We shouldn’t mingle reform with societal pulse.

#CJI: But we have an enforceable chapter on Fundamental… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi: Whos stopping them from marrying? But why take away laws that are in force to protect women and children vide articles 15(3)? Its all all about social acceptance. No law and no judgments can do that. Representative participation brings change

Senior Advocate Rakesh Dwivedi for State of MP: Parliament which knows pulse of people know when to bring about change. They have right to decide when to bring change. Slowness is required in such matters, not speed.

Dwivedi: What about Bigamy provisions? If we change husband and wife to spouses, what happens with the bigamy provisions. Entire chapter 20 of IPC based on relation between man and woman. What happens to mandate of article 20? Which says offence can only be created by law?

Dwivedi: How do we know they want to get married? They have said overwhelming majority has made that point that we want to marry. How do we then know they want to be subjected to criminal provisions under IPC? Say Bigamy? Tomorrow one of them can come & say how you could create… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

#CJI: Suppose one of the same sex couple persons marries someone from the opposite sex, then what.. Bigamy will not apply to them (bench and bar discussing)

Dwivedi: Then there are people who are into Gender fluidity. What to do with that

Dwivedi: States have power to make laws on marriage. But My Lords have not allowed my application (state of MP)

#CJI: We are hearing you Mr. Dwivedi!

#CJI: How many Dwivedi’s do we have to hear ? There is another one next to you! (Lighter vein)

Dwivedi: None My lords.. Dwivedis were the people who wanted to write two more Vedas so they were punished.. over ambitious ..
#CJI laughs

Dwivedi arguing that original intent of a legislation cannot be done away with, as has been argued by petitioners. “The judge, even when he is free, is still not wholly free. He is not to innovate at pleasure. He is not a knight-errant roaming at will in pursuit of his own ideal… twitter.com/i/web/status/1…

#CJI: We have never adopted “due process”. Even though back in the day, Congress was introducing welfare legislations, many were struck down because they were interfering with Laisez Fairre

Dwivedi: We don’t need Special Marriage act for making our marriages work or survive. They are resting on customs. We don’t need these laws. Let the society debate and let the parliament feel confident if something can be done. All that is not before your lordship.

Dwivedi: Why do we need to go along USA lines? America is guilty of the worst of crimes. They have committed worse of crimes in name of humanity. We can reform ourselves.