User:Wiki6995/sandbox

Kartik Kalra critiqued the Court's denial of a fundamental right to marry, asserting that it stems from three unfounded standards: a right predating the state, an unenumerated right colored by state action, and a right entwined with religious or customary restrictions. He argued that these standards lack precedent and contradicts the Court's liberal approach in recognizing various unenumerated rights as fundamental, such as the right to development, education, and a clean environment.

Kartik Kalra questioned the relevance of the right to marry, contending that the focus should be on whether state action infringes fundamental rights rather than proving the existence of a specific right.

Masoom Sanyal underscored a fundamental incongruity in the majority's approach, wherein explicit determinations of discrimination coexist with a reluctance to furnish a direct remedy. He asserted that the court, upon discerning indirect discrimination, should not absolve itself from the constitutional obligation to rectify the injustice. Masoom Sanyal brought attention to Justice S.K. Kaul's dissenting stance, wherein Justice referenced South African constitutional principles and advocated for an interpretive methodology that considers the 'spirit, purport, and objects' of fundamental rights in statutory interpretation. Masoom Sanyal advocated for embracing judicial creativity within the confines of safeguarding fundamental rights and upholding the Constitution.