Supreme hearing arguments on several petitions seeking to legalize same-sex marriage The Court on Thursday indicated that under the Special Marriage Act4073 The matter challenging the provision of prior notice may be referred to a two-judge bench.Special Marriage Act Provides legal form to the marriage of people of different religions or castes. Under section five of this law, the parties have to give notice regarding the desired marriage. Section VII allows any person to object to the marriage within 64 days of the publication of the notice. A five-judge constitution bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud said on Thursday that 64 the provision of giving notice of the day is not an issue related to the five-judge bench and its It also has nothing to do with whether same-sex couples should have the right to marry. In this bench Justice SK Kaul, Justice SR Bhat, Justice Hima Kohli and Justice P.S. Narasimha is also included.

It would be appropriate that the constitution bench decides on the provision of notice

At the beginning of the sixth day’s hearing, the bench said that if 64 day’s notice provision is only challenged has been passed, it may be referred to a two-member bench. The Chief Justice said that the matter had come before a two-judge bench earlier also. After the lunch break, when the bench again sat down to hear the arguments, senior advocates Anand Grover and Raju Ramachandran, appearing for the petitioners, raised the issue. Grover said that it would be appropriate for the Constitution Bench to decide the provision of notice, as the petitioners have already argued in this regard during the hearing, while Ramachandran argued that these issues are interlinked.

Issue equally applicable to normal couples and gay couples

On this the Chief Justice said that the issue of giving notice is for ordinary couples and applies equally to same-sex couples, so it is not an issue for the five-judge bench. He said that this is a very simple issue. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, said that he had already said that the issue has been wrongly clubbed with petitions related to recognition of same-sex marriages. There was a debate between the Chief Justice and Grover on this issue. After this, the bench asked Mehta to give arguments. The hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and will continue on May 3.