Senior advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, representing the petitioners, argued that this requirement directly impinges on the fundamental rights of the couple, violating their personal autonomy and privacy. As per Singhvi, no such provisions exist in personal laws of various religions.

The bench agreed that the notice period and objection aspect is a violation of personal decisional autonomy and a relic of the past. Justice Bhat stated that the provisions are only based on patriarchy and were made when women did not have agency.

The Chief Justice of India, DY Chandrachud, voiced concern about the impact of such requirements on marginalised or minority communities and emphasised the need to protect vulnerable sections of society. He added that the provisions might be the least restrictive method to curb void marriages, but the court must ensure that officers do not possess personal and private information of the individuals.

The Supreme Court had previously refused to entertain a public interest litigation challenging the provisions of the Special Marriage Act requiring publication of couples' details 30 days before the intended marriage in the public domain. However, the Kerala High Court opined earlier this year that the legislature should reconsider whether the provisions are essential in the present day and age.