now the hearing. It's day five of the same sex marriage, a hearing underway in the Supreme Court and the chief justice is listening to those arguments being made before him. And in fact, today it's been said that what constitutes a marriage, there has to be a debate and no one is standing on prestige or value judgement. Today, the government is making its submissions and once again pleading to allow this issue to be heard by the parliament to be dealt with by the parliament rather than the Supreme Court. Let's listen in is recognised. It is also regulated. And then there is no absolute right to marry even today between heterosexual couples and why I say this. A man has to be 21 years and a woman has to be 18 years, meaning thereby. The law prescribes when to marry the autonomy goals. BMI is prohibited, so law prescribes how many times you can marry simultaneously till your wife or husband is alive. Yeah, there are prohibitions regarding degrees of prohibited relationships, meaning thereby law regulates whom not to marry. Once the law recognises this social legal institution as a marriage, you just can't walk out of that institution. Law regulates even that on what grounds you can have judicial separation and on what ground you can have divorce. So how to separate is also a legislatively regulated provision. We're coming to the privacy part. Even the codified law amongst the heterosexuals protect the privacy of man and a woman inside the bedroom. But there are certain provisions where there is an intrusion to privacy rights. Also, for example, importance is a ground for divorce that is something very, very private and personal between the two human beings. But then, if it is a case, a case of divorce, you will have to come out and prove it. So your privacy is breached. Substance of my submission, which I will elaborate, is that once a legislative recognition is given to a particular form of union, it comes with it. Several regulatory provisions and it is only the parliament, not which can conceive of several situations which would arise in this relationship, which is now recognised and can provide for its regulations. It would be impossible for the court to conceive all situations now. My, my propositions followed. I just followed one of the There are 10 propositions followed, not the very heart of Special Marriage Act, and I I'll show that is, in recognition of marriage between a conventional man and a conventional woman. Lot need not not right, because I I have a lot of in in that page three Melo, I have written them. Second, the request Mo and I will demonstrate Molo more effectively. The request ultimately, is that you please rewrite to suit our situation, which can be done by the parliament. I'm not opposed to the situation or some regulation coming into place. By whom is the question and that rewriting would not be possible? This is also a lot. Ships need not not invest a lot of time or energy a lot in writing it. This rewriting is not permissible not only on the ground that the courts would not rewrite the law or say what the law should have been. But the thing which we are now seeking to achieve the petitioners are seeking to achieve was consciously omitted in spatial marriage. That is one more reason it cannot be read into it. I I will not make that submission good. So your lordships exercise would be constrained by four fundamental principles. One. The court will not change the character of the law and the character. You will have to examine from the entire architecture of the eight read with all allied statutes and the history which preceded enactment of the Special Act Special Marriage Act. Second constraint would be the court cannot substitute the legislative intent which is otherwise manifest. And third, your logic will not will not read words of larger amplitude in place of words of smaller amplitude, namely, person is a word of larger amplitude in place of male and female. Next, uh, proposition what this exercise, even if your logic are persuaded to undertake, would necessarily have an unintended impact on the heterosexual couples because Special Marriage Act essentially is for regulating the marriages between in interfaith heterosexual couples. But now I'm sorry. The next proposition is your logic would not will not undertake an exercise whereby the same statute is applicable differently to one class of persons and totally differently to another class of persons, namely heterosexuals and non heterosexuals with the same statute is applicable to differently to different classes of so we use a lot, namely heterosexuals and non heterosexuals. We use one lens for heterosexual couples and another lens for non hetero section. Yes, and I'm I'm grateful. I I could not put it that succinctly, but that's the respectful submission, and it would be impossible for your lordships to reconcile this classification. I'll be able to show from the scheme and structure of the Special Marriage Act next. My look, Lord, we are dealing with. Let us understand what we are dealing with, Lord, we say LGBT Q A I plus curriculum we know l stands for lesbians. G for gaze B for bisexuals. T for transgenders Q. For cures I for intersex A for asexuals Look, we have not tried to know what plus means, and this is going to be the core of the problem, which Aoi could face if the judiciary were to take over the function of regulating the relationship after recognising it as a social legal relationship. But there are 72 shades or variations. That is why we do. What we write is plus, and please examine Molo how your lordships would, even if your lordships are persuaded to be kind of undertake an exercise of rewriting, not deal with these varieties of situations. But, Lord, please allow me to place Molo. Uh, that at page, I'll just will not give some examples to an extra A page 109. Of what? Of my written submissions, My lord. Justice Paul, my lord, has my opinion a lot. There are several different shades and spectrums. It's not that we are dealing with either lesbians and gays and transgenders. We are dealing with similar. Well, it is not. One. Read the submissions on the question that only Legislature can deal with the subject matter. I just wanna give you some examples. I'm not going to read all 72 categories, but can I already reference? Give the physical copy. No, no, no, no. Which page You said Mr So let's. In fact, your physical copies, please send them away. Back to your office. PDF 113. I'm sorry. My It was a loose ball. I forgot that. I'm also using a physical copy and your continuing is being breached that they are going to be confiscated. Yeah. Yes, I I will be so no, not one. Submissions. No one. Only the legislature can deal with the subject matter. Page Page 113 is other Related, not one. Only the legislature has the power. That's very nice.
