Delhi HC questions Centre over delay in same-sex medical representative plea

The Delhi High Court on Thursday questioned the Centre over its failure to file a response for more than a year to a petition seeking recognition of same-sex partners as medical representatives during treatment and emergencies.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma asked the government why it had not submitted its reply despite the court issuing notice to the Centre and the National Medical Commission (NMC) in July 2025.

The court observed that if same-sex couples are allowed to live together in a relationship, the rules should also account for their rights in situations such as medical treatment.

"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 Sharma said.

The court also asked the Centre to clarify its position on the matter. "You need to tell me what your stand is. This fight is what for?" it said.

The government counsel sought additional time to obtain instructions from the authorities, saying he had been appointed recently.

Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for the petitioner, told the court that the Centre had already been given a final opportunity in July to file its counter affidavit but had not done so.

The petition has been filed by a woman who has been in a relationship with her partner since 2015. The couple married in New Zealand in 2023 and have been living together in Delhi since 2018.

The plea seeks recognition of same-sex partners as medical representatives who can provide consent and make medical decisions for their partners during treatment or emergencies.

It also seeks guidelines requiring hospitals and doctors to recognise non-heterosexual partners and allow them access to their partners during medical treatment.

The petitioner's counsel argued that authorities cannot permit same-sex partners to live together while denying them the ability to make decisions for each other in medical situations.

The court, in its order, noted the delay in filing the Centre's response.

"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 matter will next be heard on September 17.

The plea has also challenged the absence of a clear legal framework recognising "partners in a union" for medical consent. It pointed to existing regulations that provide for consent from a "husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself".

According to the petitioner, the absence of explicit recognition of same-sex partners leaves them unable to make critical medical decisions for each other, rights that are available to heterosexual couples under existing regulations.

The petitioner said her partner's immediate family members live in different states or countries and may not be available during a medical emergency.

As an alternative, the plea has sought a declaration that a medical power of attorney executed in advance by a patient in favour of their same-sex partner should be sufficient to allow that partner to act as the medical representative.

The petition argues that the absence of such recognition creates a "disparate impact" and amounts to discrimination on the ground of sex, besides violating fundamental rights.