'He said, she said': Outlandish arguments, groundbreaking statements from India's same-sex marriage trial

India is currently undergoing a historical debate on same-sex marriage, with a landmark trial marked with a range of comments and statements from various individuals and groups, some outlandish, others groundbreaking. As the Indian apex court readies to deliver its judgement, let's have a look at some notable statements from the same-sex marriage trial.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud deliberated on the current gender spectrums and asserted that there is no absolute concept of a man or a woman and said that one's gender is not determined by their genitals.

Senior lawyer Mukul Rohtagi, who represents the plaintiffs, said to the court that the Indian constitution gives everyone the right to live their life with dignity. "If our rights are identical and then we should enjoy full array of rights as under Articles 14, 15 and 21," he said.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta posed the question that what would happen to female-centric laws and if genitals do not dictate one's gender, how will the courts decide if a person can be tried under a particular section of law. Here "160" refers to section 160 of CrPC, as per which women cannot be called to the police station for interrogation.

Senior Advocate Menaka Guruswamy told the court that same-sex marriages are not merely about dignity but they also provide the couple with a number of rights, including the very basic right towards availing a life insurance.

With" I cannot buy SCBA medical insurance," Guruswamy, who along with Arundhati Katju is the face behind the historic dismissal of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, is referring to her own relationship.

In 2019, Lawyers Menaka Guruswamy & Arundhati Katju revealed that they are a couple.

This is perhaps the most controversial statement from the trial. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta characterised same-sex relations and incest together, calling them "prohibited relationships," and posed an analogy to the court.

Chief Justice DY Chandrachud however, dismissed the parallel by calling it "far-fetched".

Questioning the need for being of binary gender for marriage, Chief Justice DY Chandrachud stressed that same-sex relationships were “not just physical”.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who was appearing for Jamiat-Ulema-i-Hind first said people are entitled to have relationships of “whatever kind,” and then registered reservations against same-sex marriage and posed question regarding children in same-sex marriages and the "traditional" gender roles.