The chief justice concluded his remarks by saying that "there is no universal conception of the institution of marriage and that it lies within the domain of parliament and state legislatures to enact laws recognising and regulating queer marriage".

Marriage, he said, had attained significance as a legal institution largely because it's regulated by the state and comes with a number of material benefits.

There is no fundamental right to marry in the constitution and an institution cannot be elevated to the realm of a fundamental right based on the importance accorded to it by law, he added.

However, he said that several facets of the marital relationship are reflections of constitutional values, including the right to human dignity and the right to life and personal liberty.

"This court cannot either strike down the constitutional validity of the Special Marriage Act or read words into the Special Marriage Act because of its institutional limitations. The court, in the exercise of the power of judicial review, must steer clear of matters, particularly those impinging on policy, which fall in the legislative domain," he said.

The Chief Justice accepts Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's proposal on behalf of the Indian government to set up an expert panel headed by the cabinet secretary (the country's top bureaucrat) to consider granting queer couples a bouquet of rights and privileges - except the right to marriage - that are available to heterosexual couples.

The Chief Justice also read out a checklist for the police:

• There shall be no harassment of couples by summoning them to the police station or visiting their homes solely to interrogate them about their gender identity or sexual orientation
• Queer people must not be forced to return to their birth families if they do not wish to do so
• When queer people complain to the police that their family is restraining their freedom of movement, the police shall verify the genuineness of the complaint and ensure that their freedom is not curtailed
• When a police complaint is filed apprehending violence from the family for the reason that the complainant is queer or is in a queer relationship, they shall, on verifying the genuineness of the complaint, ensure protection

It's a long post - but Justice Chandrachud's list of directions to the government is pretty long:

• Ensure that the "queer community is not discriminated against because of their gender identity or sexual orientation"
• To ensure that the LGBTQ+ community faces no discrimination in accessing goods and services which are available to the public
• Take steps to sensitise the public about LGBTQ+ identity, including that it is natural and not a mental disorder.
• Establish hotline numbers which the LGBTQ+ community can contact when they face harassment and violence in any form
• Establish and publicise the availability of safe houses in all districts to provide shelter to members of the LGBTQ+ community who are facing violence or discrimination
• Ensure that treatments offered by doctors or other persons which aim to change gender identity or sexual orientation are ceased with immediate effect
• Ensure that intersex children are not forced to undergo operations with regard only to their sex, especially at an age when they are unable to fully comprehend and consent to such operations
• No person shall be forced to undergo hormonal therapy or sterilisation or any other medical procedure either as a condition or prerequisite to grant legal recognition to their gender identity

This is a significant one.

Among the directions Chief Justice Chandrachud has announced is one that goes to the heart of the Indian family system - that queer and unmarried couples can jointly adopt a child.

Justice Chandrachud is continuing his remarks:

"Choosing a life partner is an integral part of choosing one's course of life. Some may regard this as the most important decision of their life. This right goes to the root of the right to life and liberty under Article 21 [of India's constitution]."

"The right to enter into a union includes the right to choose one's partner and the right to recognition of that union. A failure to recognise such associations will result in discrimination against queer couples," Justice Chandrachud continues.

...are listening carefully as the Chief Justice continues giving his remarks.

"We may not be unique in our ability to feel love, but it's what makes us human," says Chief Justice Chandrachud.

He adds that these relationships may take many forms and "the right to intimate relations must be unrestricted".

"Even if a law doesn't grant any special material benefits to a relationship, it should still be considered legitimate in the eyes of society," he says.

He says:

"This court cannot compel parliament or state assemblies to create a new institution of marriage.

"We also cannot hold the Special Marriage Act unconstitutional just because it doesn't recognize same-sex marriages, nor can we redraft the law or other legal provisions to substitute man and woman for husband and wife.

"The judiciary cannot legislate."

Justice Chandrachud:

"The doctrine of separation of powers [between the parliament and the judiciary] can't stop courts from enforcing fundamental rights.

"This court can't make laws but can enforce laws."

"The court is not attempting to take up the mantle of historians," says Chief Justice Chandrachud.

But he adds that the "institution of marriage is not static - all social institutions transform over time and marriage is no exception".

"Despite vehement opposition to departure from practice, the institution of marriage has changed, it has metamorphosed. It has transformed from the time of our ancestors 200 years ago," he says.

We are paraphrasing some of the statements of Justice Chandrachud: Not everyone who lives in a city is elite. And people in rural areas may not identify as queer but that's because they are not familiar with the terminology.

Chief Justice Chandrachud says homosexuality or queerness is not urban or elite.

Image source, Screenshot from YouTube

Justice Chandrachud: 'There are four orders. There's a degree of agreement and there's a degree of disagreement.'

The judges have just walked in and taken their seats. The Chief Justice apologised for the delay and said they were held up by some ceremonial work.

We're still waiting for the judges to take their seats and begin reading out the verdict.

Devang Shah
Reporting from Supreme Court

Outside the Supreme Court, the lawns are buzzing with activity. Journalists and activists have already taken position here.

Many LGBTQ+ people are here too and many of them are hoping to be present in the courtroom as the judgement comes.

Many of them look nervous, but others say they are "fairly optimistic" about the ruling.

Most petitioners and lawyers have so far refused to talk, saying they would comment only after the verdict.

We hope to hear from them soon. The anticipation is real.

Geeta Pandey
Reporting from Delhi

With just a few minutes to go before the Supreme Court bench assembles to pronounce the much-awaited judgement, here’s a recap for those who are just joining us.

If the judges decide to legalise same-sex marriage in India, it will allow tens of millions of LGBTQ+ people the right to marry.

The petitioners, same-sex couples, activists and organisations are hoping for a favourable verdict - they say not being able to marry makes them unequal citizens.

But the government and religious leaders have put up a stiff opposition. They say same-sex unions are against Indian culture and allowing them will lead to “chaos” in the society.

As lawyer Akshat Bajpai told me, "the judges have to walk a tightrope" in a country where "marriage and family are at the heart of any religion".

Senior lawyers Arundhati Katju and Menaka Guruswamy, who have led the legal fight to make same-sex marriages legal in India, said today was 'big day'.

The two lawyers had also spearheaded the legal challenge that led to gay sex being decriminalised in India in 2018.