The Supreme Court heard arguments on a batch of pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages.
The five-judge constitution bench is headed by Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud.
On Wednesday, the top court emphasised on the need to finish the matter in a time-bound manner, saying there are other cases waiting to be heard.
The Centre has urged the Supreme Court that all states and Union Territories be made parties to the proceedings on the pleas seeking legal validation for same-sex marriages.
Last year the Apex Court sought the Centre’s response to separate pleas moved by two gay couples seeking enforcement of their right to marry and a direction to the authorities concerned to register their marriages under the Special Marriage Act.
Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the petitioners, had said that personal laws in the country “don’t discriminate” unlike the Special Marriage Act (SMA) of 1954, while arguing against the mandatory 30-day notice period in it.
Singhvi added that the period allows interference from khap panchayats and others opposed to such marriages and that it should not exist for heterosexual couples as well.
The Centre, in its application earlier, had stated that what has been presented to the court on the subject by the petitioners is “a mere urban elitist view” and “the competent legislature will have to take into account broader views” of various sections.
Same-sex marriage SC hearing highlights
The Supreme Court on Thursday entered into day 3 of its hearing on a bunch of at least 15 petitions regarding the demand for marriage equality in India.
On Wednesday hearing began with Centre’s affidavit to the Supreme Court seeking to admit all the states as parties in the matter, stating that the case requires an assessment of state rules, and customs of different sections of society.
Centre has raised preliminary objection to the hearing and said the parliament is the only constitutionally permissible forum to decide on creation of a new social relationship.
Meanwhile, senior lawyer Mukul Rohatgi,appearing for the petitioners, stated the affidavit “irrelevant”.
Rohatgi, defending the rights of the LGBTQIA+ community, argued that the State’s recognition of union of homosexual couple will reduce the stigma around homosexuality and gave references of several case laws where marriage equality was upheld in other countries.
