Delhi HC grants week to Govt for response on same-sex plea
The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned the Centre for its failure to respond, even after a year, to a petition seeking recognition of same-sex couples as medical representatives during medical treatment.
The court orally observed that when people are allowed to enter into a live-in relationship with same-sex partners, then the authorities have to make changes in the rules accordingly.
“The law recognises a live-in relationship between a man and a woman. Why will it not allow a live-in relationship between a man and a man?
“Whenever a person chooses a path which is not a path taken by the majority, they will be targeted or looked down upon; or not looked down but will not be accepted. I have many cases where the families give them up and do not accept the relation,” Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said.
The court, which had issued notice to the Centre and National Medical Commission (NMC) in July 2025, asked why the authorities have not filed their replies yet.
“You need to tell me what your stand is. This fight is what for?” the court said.
The government counsel urged the court to grant some time to enable him to get instructions from the authorities on the ground that he has been appointed recently.
Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, representing the queer petitioner, said the court had given a last opportunity to the Centre in July to file its counter affidavit but it has not been filed yet.
The court was hearing a petition filed by a woman, who was in a relationship with her partner since 2015 and both got married in New Zealand in 2023. They have been living together as same-sex partners in Delhi since 2018.
The petition highlighted the absence of a clear legal framework or common law recognition for “partners in a union” to be acknowledged for medical consent during medical treatment or emergencies.
The plea urged the court to frame guidelines directing hospitals or doctors to recognise non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives and grant them access during medical treatment.
During the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel said the authorities cannot say that same-sex partners can live together but cannot do anything together.
The court recorded in its order, “For one year, the counter affidavit has not been filed. However, considering the issue in question and its importance and that the counter affidavit will be needed for adjudication of this case, this court permits them to file a counter affidavit within one week.”
The court listed the matter for further hearing on September 17. The plea said the existing regulation was vague as it mandated consent for medical procedures and treatment from a “husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself”.
It argued the lack of explicit recognition of partners in a union renders the petitioner effectively powerless to make critical medical decisions for her partner, or vice-a-versa, a right readily available to heterosexual partners or couples under the prevailing regulations.
The petitioner pointed out the “critical need” for recognition of their union in medical contexts, submitting that her partner’s immediate family members were living in different states or countries, making them potentially inaccessible during a medical emergency.
“Alternatively, the petitioner seeks a declaration that a medical power of attorney given in advance by a patient to their non-heterosexual partner shall be sufficient for such partner to act as the duly constituted medical representative. These prayers seek to address the current legal vacuum and ensure the fundamental right to care for one’s partner in medical crises is afforded to all,” the petition said.
The lack of legal recognition leads to “a disparate impact” and violates the constitutional obligation to acknowledge their union under the Constitution and “this systemic exclusion/ omission” also constitutes discrimination on the ground of sex, violating fundamental right, it added.
