Same Sex Marriage- Supreme Court Hearing- DAY-6-LIVE UPDATES

SG Mehta: So marriage also in heterosexual couples ideally shouldn't have been regulated. But society felt that you can't permit people to marry at any age, many times etc

SG Mehta: State should be very slow in recognising a relationship because state is entering an arena of socio-personal relationship. It can recognise only when legitimate state interest recognises that regulation is necessary.

SG Mehta: Petitioner wants a new class to be created for a new object. That was never conceived. There is no positive obligation on state to recognise all personal relationships.

SG Mehta: SMA is only for heterosexuals. That's what the language and the debates also show.

SG Mehta: Continuing my argument, on Article 14 I say that it applies when government has made mechanisms for different classes though they're same- that is not the case here.

SG Mehta: Whatever administrately can be done can be seen. My stand on this will not be adversarial.

CJI DY Chandrachud: We will meet on Wednesday so you have that time to come back to us on this.

SG Mehta: I make it clear that i will assist the court qua, so far as possible and legally permissible, removal of the barriers without any legal or statutory recognition.

SG Mehta: That can continue. There is no prohibition.

Justice Kaul: Live in relationship was also in that category. Some obligations follow. Similarly, problems are bound to arise here. So bank accounts, adoption- is an aspect where i thought govt maybe have thought about it

SG Mehta: Yes yes. Your lordships decriminalisation would not be understood as a recognition of any status.

Justice Kaul: It recognised the existence of the relationship, of the situation - it said it's no longer criminalised.

CJI DY Chandrachud: We request you to assist us on this in a non adversarial manner.