Same-sex marriage: Talks should have started 5 months ago, petitioners say

The petitioners pleading for same-sex marriage rights opposed the Centre's request to wait for consultations with states, saying such an exercise should have begun months ago.
In its application, the Centre informed a bench of CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices SK Kaul, SR Bhat, Hima Kohli and PS Narasimha that on Tuesday, it had sought views of all states and pleaded that it would be desirable to await the outcome of such a consultation process. Solicitor general Tushar Mehta said this was to renew his request that SC should issue notice to all states and seek their views.
Senior advocate Mukul Rohatgi, appearing for petitioners, questioned the Centre's bona fide by arguing that the letter to states was written on Tuesday even though notice on the petitions was issued five months ago. "If someone wanted to carry out the consultation process, they should have initiated it five months ago. This is an unnecessary show," he said.
He called the move unnecessary as petitioners had challenged a central law - the Special Marriage Act, 1954. "Merely because 'marriage' happens to be in the concurrent list, there is no rationale in saying that this petition is bad because it did not make states as parties," he said.
On the Centre's submission, the CJI said, "Now you have told them (states) that this matter is going on. That is excellent". Any state wanting to be a party could do so.
The CJI told Rohatgi, "You need not labour on this issue", meaning, thereby, that the court was not accepting the Centre's fresh request. "We will hear whoever wants to be heard on the point of law," he added. Justice Kaul complemented the CJI's view by saying, "We did not call upon you to contest the Centre's application."
In its application, the Centre said since the subject matter of the petitions came under Entry 5 of List III of the Constitution, "the rights of states, especially the right to legislate on the subject, will be affected by any decision on the subject. Since various states have legislated on the subject through delegated legislation, it's necessary to make them parties to this case".
Union law secretary Niten Chandra, in his letter to all chief secretaries, said in the event the court refuses to issue notice to all states, it would be expedient on the part of states to communicate their views to the Union government for presentation of a composite submission before the apex court.