Same Sex Marriage: J Sai Deepak argues before CJI Chandrachud led bench in Supreme Court

Summary

The speaker passionately argues against the judicial intervention in societal norms, emphasizing the importance of legislative processes and societal participation in matters of marriage and family. They discuss the separation of powers, the role of the president in legislation, and the potential ramifications of bypassing societal consensus for individual rights. The speech also touches on international law, highlighting the Yogyakarta Principles, and suggests focusing on more pressing issues for marginalized groups before addressing marital rights.

Takeaways

• 🕵️ The speaker emphasizes the distinction between 'Fetters' and 'Powers', suggesting that the petitioners' issue falls within either prohibited areas or areas for judicial adjudication.
• 📜 The first law of thermodynamics is used metaphorically to encapsulate the speaker's position on the matter at hand, indicating a foundational principle.
• ⚖️ The speaker discusses the issue of legislative competence and the separation of powers, suggesting that societal participation in the proceedings is crucial.
• 🏛 The speaker argues against the idea that liberal democracy should exclude social conservatism, questioning the right of society to draw boundaries.
• 💏 The speaker represents a women's organization and highlights the potential individualization of marriage, arguing that it should retain its social character.
• 👪 The speaker raises concerns about the societal implications of changing heteronormative attitudes and the impact on children and single parents.
• 📝 The speaker refers to the Manual of Parliamentary Procedures, particularly Clause 9.2, to argue that legislative proposals should follow a detailed process that includes societal consultation.
• 👥 The speaker asserts that the judiciary should not substitute the societal process of revisiting normative attitudes, advocating for societal engagement over judicial paternalism.
• 🔄 The speaker points out inconsistencies in the interpretation of sexual orientation and gender identity within the judgment, suggesting the need for clarity.
• 🌐 The speaker mentions international law, specifically the Yogyakarta Principles, noting that countries have the autonomy to decide on recognition of marital units.
• 🔮 The speaker concludes by suggesting that while the cause may be worthy, the court should consider the broader implications of judicial intervention on future cases and societal issues.

Q & A

What is the primary argument presented by the speaker in the script?

The speaker argues the distinction between 'Fetters and Powers', emphasizing the central issue of whether certain matters should be within the purview of the judiciary or legislative bodies, and the role of society in such discussions.

What does the speaker mean by 'the first law of thermodynamics' in the context of the argument?

This seems to be a metaphorical reference to a fundamental principle that encapsulates the speaker's position on the matter at hand, rather than a literal reference to a scientific law.

What is the significance of the speaker's mention of 'heteronormative attitudes'?

The speaker is discussing the societal norms around marriage and questioning whether the court should intervene to change these norms, suggesting that society should have the agency to participate in such discussions.

What is the speaker's stance on the role of the judiciary in societal issues?

The speaker argues against the judiciary substituting societal causation with judicial paternalism, suggesting that the court should not be used to circumvent democratic processes.

How does the speaker view the role of the society in legislative changes?

The speaker believes that society, as the chief stakeholder, should have the right to participate in discussions on legislative changes, especially when it comes to societal institutions like marriage.

What is the speaker's position on the individualizing of socio-centric institutions?

The speaker opposes the individualization of socio-centric institutions like marriage, arguing that it demeans the institution and removes its social character.

What does the speaker mean by 'the cause is different from the case'?

The speaker is distinguishing between the underlying issues or concerns (the cause) and the legal arguments being made in court (the case), suggesting that while the concerns may be valid, the legal arguments may not be.

What is the significance of the 'manual for parliamentary procedure of 2019' mentioned by the speaker?

The manual is significant as it outlines the steps for promulgating legislation, which the speaker argues cannot be substituted by judicial mechanisms, emphasizing the importance of following proper legislative processes.

What is the speaker's view on the role of international law in the context of the discussion?

The speaker points out that international instruments, such as the Yogyakarta Principles, do not impose a binding precedent on the issue at hand, leaving it to individual countries to decide.

What is the speaker's final submission regarding the broader implications of the case?

The speaker suggests that while the cause may be worthy, the implications of opening the door to judicial intervention in such matters could have broader consequences for the future, beyond the specific case at hand.