Same-sex partner medical rights plea: Delhi HC asks how media got Centre's affidavit beforehand

The Delhi High Court on Thursday asked how the Central government's written response to a plea seeking recognition of same-sex partners as each other's medical representatives was reported by the media before it was placed before the Court.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said that the Court was surprised when it read the Centre's reply in the media.

"How is the counter known to the press before I came to know? I am very surprised. I read it and I was just thinking, ye case toh mere pass hai. Press ke pass kaise pehle aata hai? (How does it come to the press first?) I am also intrigued. How is it that you have given a copy to them and to the ress? Somebody has given it to the press."

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma responded that the government had not shared the counter affidavit with the media.

"We have not given it to the press. The government does not give it to the press. That is the reason, the matter may have some other connotation. Today I am not saying anything. SG will," he said.

Sharma sought an adjournment in the case, stating that the Centre has asked the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to appear in the matter but he was unable to appear today.

The Court asked why the SG has to appear when as per the media reports, the Centre in its affidavit dated September 10 has backed the plea for allowing same sex couples to give consent for medical treatment during health emergencies.

"What for? But you have already given your consent right?" the Court asked.

The ASG stated that there is some issue with the counter affidavit and the Centre is looking into it. He urged the Court to list the matter after two or three weeks.

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for the petitioner, opposed the adjournment request. He said that the matter has remained pending for a long time.

"It has been a year. It is an important issue for the people of the country, all the more reason SG should come," he said.

Meanwhile, the Court was informed that the Centre's counter affidavit was not on record.

The ASG said that the counter affidavit has been filed but is currently under objections. He added that a copy of the affidavit was provided to the petitioner.

When the Court asked the Centre to remove the objections and place the counter affidavit on record, the ASG stated,

"My Lord could say [in the order] that it is not on record. Whatever the affidavit is. Whether it is the same affidavit or the government wants to..."

Kirpal interjected,

"If they are planning to change the counter then they should say so."

ASG in response said,

"I don't know what it will be. SG will take a call on this."

The Court then recorded in its order that the affidavit filed by the government was not on record.

"Let the same be filed in case not filed yet, within 2 weeks," the Bench said.

The matter will be heard next on October 5.

The plea has been filed by a woman who got married to her partner in New Zealand in 2023. She has argued that there is a critical need for recognition of their union in the medical context, particularly because her partners' immediate family members reside in different states or countries, making them potentially inaccessible during a medical emergency.

The existing regulations mandate consent of "husband or wife, parent or guardian in case of minors, or the patient himself" for medical procedures or treatment, the plea said.

The plea has sought guidelines directing hospitals and physicians to recognise non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives.

In the alternative, it has sought a declaration that a medical power of attorney given in advance by a patient to their non-heterosexual partner would be sufficient for such a partner to act as the duly constituted medical representative.

The Court had issued notice to the Central government and the National Medical Commission (NMC) on July 17, 2025. On August 20, the Court had granted one week's time to the Centre to respond to the petition.

Senior Advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Shyel Trehan argued for the petitioner.

[Read Live Coverage]