HC questions Centre on same-sex couple rights

The Delhi High Court recently challenged the central government over its refusal to respond to a petition requesting legal recognition for same-sex couples as medical representatives during medical treatment. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed concern that if live-in relationships between a man and a woman are recognized by the law, similar recognition should be granted to partnerships between men.

The court pointed out the social challenges faced by individuals in same-sex relationships, stating that when someone chooses a path not taken by the majority, they often face discrimination or rejection. The High Court had issued a notice to the Center and the National Medical Commission (NMC) in July 2025, but neither entity had provided a response by the time the court questioned them.

The judge asked, "What is your stand?" When asked about the timing of the petition, government counsel requested additional time to consult with authorities, citing a recent appointment. Senior advocate Saurabh Kirpal, representing the petitioner, noted that the Centre had been given a final chance in July to file its response but had not done so.

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on September 17. The petitioner is a woman who has been in a relationship with her partner since 2015; they married in New Zealand in 2023 and have lived together in Delhi since 2018. The lawsuit highlights the lack of a clear legal framework recognizing partners in same-sex unions as medical representatives, especially when one partner needs to make decisions during medical treatment or an emergency.

The petitioner has requested guidelines for hospitals and doctors to acknowledge non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives, allowing them access during treatment. Alternatively, she seeks a declaration that a medical power of attorney executed in advance by a patient should be sufficient to enable their same-sex partner to act as their medical representative.

The lawsuit argues that existing regulations only refer to consent from a "husband or wife, parent or guardian in the case of a minor, or the patient himself," without explicitly recognizing partners in same-sex unions. This leaves same-sex partners unable to make critical medical decisions for each other, particularly when immediate family members may be in different locations and may not be available during an emergency.