Same-sex marriage Day 3: Supreme Court flags trolling based on oral observations, questions raised during hearings

The Supreme Court on Thursday discussed the reactions to its oral observations and questions raised during the hearing of the same-sex marriage case. [Supriyo and anr v. Union of India]..A Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) DY Chandrachud and also comprising Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, S Ravindra Bhat, PS Narasimha and Hima Kohli bemoaned the fact that answers to its queries and comments to counsel were being delivered on social media.In response to a submission by a counsel that the Central Adoption Regulation Authority Rules currently do not permit adoption by a single parent/bachelor, the CJI remarked, "What happens when there is a heterosexual couple, when there is domestic violence? What kind of impact on children? So much for being heterosexual. What about father coming back home drunk thrashing up the mother and asking money for alcohol? There is nothing absolute; at the cost of being trolled. Answers to what we say in court is in trolls, and not in court."CJI Chandrachud had on Tuesday made the point that gender identity cannot be restricted to any absolute definition or notion, a comment for which he has been subject to intense scrutiny online..Today was the third day of arguments in the batch of pleas seeking legal recognition of same-sex marriage.Various counsel for the petitioners and intervenors sought more time to present their arguments at the outset. In response, CJI Chandrachud explained,"Next week we will sit Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday like Ayodhya case. No miscellaneous days, and we will hear throughout...If Constitution Benches have to really go on, then five judges have to leave their regular boards and that is why previously these benches were not formed. You do not know the pressure of listing cases and if we do not ration time, then these Constitution Benches cannot be formed.".During the hearing, the CJI observed that the Court could not cross the line to enter the legislative domain by rewriting statutes. However, he said that by the decriminalisation of Section 377, stable and emotional relationships were also contemplated for same-sex couples."The question is should the statute recognise marriage-like relationships or recognise the marriage itself? It is for us to redefine the existing definition of marriage, we have to see that if binary genders fall within the existing definitions of marriage. We have to see by expanding the definition whether we will violate the earlier judgments. Here were are not utilising the Constitution to read down or strike down statute. We are expanding the meaning of the statute in terms of constitutional guarantees.".Justice Kaul pointed out the future eventualities arising out of any recognition of same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act, including those of rape within such relationships and during marriage."Laws that apply to heterosexual relationship will also apply to homosexual relationship?" he asked.Justice Kohli weighed in, saying, "There are many shades on the palette. Do we want to go that far?".Appearing for a petitioner, Senior Advocate Raju Ramachandran stressed the need for protection of same-sex couples from their families."The recognition of their marriage is an important protection to them in addition to societal recognition, which protects them from society and parental families. Any judgment of this Court will be incomplete unless a protocol is put in place like how heterosexual couples seek protection from khap panchayats."Senior Advocate KV Viswanathan, appearing for another petitioner, argued that procreation should not be considered a valid defence to negate any right to marriage for same-sex couples. "Marriage is coming together of two souls and to be told that it is to be looked at from a procreation purpose is completely fallacious...Gay, lesbian, LGBTQIA people are adept at raising children compared to heterosexual couples."He added that the age of marriage for the third gender should be kept at 18, and that states will have to make laws in accordance with any declared fundamental right to marry..The hearing will continue on Monday, when the petitioners will conclude their submissions..[Watch the entire hearing here].[Follow our live-coverage of today's hearing].Follow our detailed coverage of Day 1 of the hearing here and here.Follow our detailed coverage of Day 2 of the hearing here and here.Read about the 20 petitions seeking legalisation of same-sex marriage here.