Page:NCGLE v Minister of Home Affairs.djvu/60

This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.

Ackermann J

benefit.”[1]

The third was to “declare the section in its entirety to be invalid.”[2] The High Court purported to adopt the second option because it appeared―

“… preferable to frame the declaration of invalidity so as to save a legitimate purpose (that is, acknowledging the importance of some forms of permanent relationships) rather than to deny a benefit to all who deserve it. But this perpetrates discrimination in respect of certain forms of permanent relationships. Thus legislative action is required to remedy the position and ensure that no unjustified discrimination is permitted by the Act,”[3]

and accordingly drafted paragraph 1 of its order to read:


  1. Id at 296 B.
  2. Id at 296 C.
  3. Id at 296 C–D.

60