1 week ago
Delhi High Court Gives Centre One Week on Same-Sex Rights
A woman asked the court to let same-sex partners make important medical decisions for each other.
She said current rules clearly mention husbands, wives, parents, guardians, or patients themselves, but do not clearly mention same-sex partners.
This can create problems if a partner is sick and family members are far away.
The woman and her partner have been together since 2015 and married in New Zealand in 2023.
The Delhi High Court asked the central government why it had not answered the case for a year.
The government lawyer asked for more time because he was recently appointed.
The court gave the government one week to file its response.
The case will be heard again on September 17.
The Delhi High Court gave the Centre one week to respond to a petition on same-sex partners’ medical-representative rights.
The petition asks hospitals and doctors to recognise non-heterosexual partners for medical consent and access during treatment or emergencies.
The court questioned why the Centre and National Medical Commission had not filed responses despite receiving notice in July 2025.
The petitioner has been in a relationship since 2015, married her partner in New Zealand in 2023, and lives with her in Delhi.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on September 17 after allowing the government to seek instructions.
- Who
- The Delhi High Court, the central government, the National Medical Commission, and a woman petitioning on behalf of same-sex partners.
- What
- The court gave the Centre one week to respond to a petition seeking recognition of same-sex partners as medical representatives.
- Where
- The case is before the Delhi High Court; the couple lives together in Delhi.
- When
- The hearing was reported on August 20; the next hearing is scheduled for September 17.
- Why
- The petition says existing medical-consent rules do not clearly recognise same-sex partners, potentially preventing them from making medical decisions or accessing treatment information during emergencies.
Petitioner’s Position
Authorities’ Position
Medical decision-making
Petitioner’s Position
Same-sex partners should be recognised by hospitals and doctors as medical representatives and should be able to make critical decisions for one another.
Authorities’ Position
The Centre had not filed its substantive response; its counsel requested additional time to obtain instructions from the authorities.
Legal recognition
Petitioner’s Position
The petition argues that excluding partners from medical rules creates a legal vacuum, disparate impact, and discrimination based on sex.
Authorities’ Position
The authorities’ position on the petition had not yet been presented to the court when the hearing was reported.
Live-in relationships
Petitioner’s Position
The petitioner’s counsel argued that authorities should not allow same-sex partners to live together while denying them the ability to act together in medical matters.
Authorities’ Position
The court’s observations raised questions about adapting rules, but no final ruling recognising these rights was issued.
Key facts
- Court
- Delhi High Court
- Response deadline
- The Centre was given one week to file its counter affidavit.
- Respondents
- The Centre and the National Medical Commission
- Relationship timeline
- The petitioner and her partner have been together since 2015 and living together in Delhi since 2018.
- Marriage
- The couple married in New Zealand in 2023.
- Requested relief
- Recognition of non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives, or acceptance of an advance medical power of attorney.
- Next hearing
- September 17
Quotes
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma
Judge of the Delhi High Court
“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.”
theprint.in
“"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?"”
telegraphindia.com
Sources
Related news
Delhi High Court Questions Centre on Same-Sex Medical Rights
Delhi High Court Protects Live-In Couple, Affirms Choice Rights
Shashi Tharoor questions delay in LGBTQIA+ rights panel's work
Punjab and Haryana High Court denies live-in protection to minors
Uttarakhand High Court Upholds Adults’ Right to Choose Partners
Amid Life Threats, Allahabad High Court Protects Interfaith Couple’s Rights
