They sort of did. But I think they were covered in the shroud of legalese and reverse justifications. If you ask me personally, of course, I believe the Constitution ought to recognise the fundamental right to marry for the queer community. But the court went so far as to say that there is no fundamental right to marry, even for any two straight citizens, straight people, let alone queer community. There is no right to marry under our Constitution. But in doing so, they ignored the practical reality is that various religions do permit marriage, various statutes do permit marriage. And I think there was almost, with the greatest respect, a duplicity in the judgment of the court. So, when you read each of the judgments, there are pages upon pages upon lamentations about how the queer community is treated so badly and how there is a right to a relationship that exists in our Constitution, two people can be allowed to live together, and they must have the right to have a relationship. But it fell short, in directing the government to do something about it. Now, to me, that was a sense of judicial reticence, but some more unkind than me would call it cowardice. In so many other matters, these arguments of institutional competence have been put to the wayside and the courts have readily intervened from declaring the right to a healthy environment, to saying that you have a right to sleep, you know, an 'undisturbed' sleep. I mean, if our Constitution can have in its Article 21, a right to an undisturbed sleep, then surely, surely you cannot say that there is no right to marry. But that's what they said, and I hope it would change at some point.