The Delhi High Court has questioned why Indian law should permit two men to live together as partners but not extend similar recognition to their relationship when important medical decisions are involved.
Delhi High Court Questions Exclusion of Queer Partners From Medical Consent Rights
The issue came before the Court in a petition seeking legal safeguards for queer partners so that they can act as medical representatives for one another. The matter was heard by Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma on August 20, 2026.
Petition Seeks Medical Rights for Queer Partners
The petition was filed by Arshiya Takkar, who belongs to the LGBTQ+ community. She has asked the Court to ensure that a queer partner can be recognised as the medical representative of their partner and can participate in decisions concerning medical treatment.
At present, the petition points to the Indian Medical Council’s 2002 professional regulations, under which a patient’s husband, wife, parent or guardian is recognised for giving consent in situations involving medical treatment.
The petitioner argues that excluding same-sex partners from this framework creates an unequal system in which heterosexual relationships receive recognition while queer relationships are left without comparable safeguards.
Delhi HC Questions the Centre’s Position
During the hearing, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma questioned the Central government’s position on the issue.
The Court essentially asked why the legal system should recognise a live-in relationship between a man and a woman but refuse to acknowledge a similar relationship between two men.
The question assumes significance because Indian courts have recognised constitutional protections surrounding personal liberty, privacy, dignity and the choice of a partner. However, the legal position concerning marriage and same-sex relationships remains different from the position regarding heterosexual marriage.
Also Read: Anti-Paper Leak Law Will Be Strongest Deterrent Against Exam Fraud
Petition Relies on Constitutional Equality
The petitioner has argued that the exclusion of non-heterosexual partners can amount to discrimination based on sexual orientation.
The petition relies on Article 15 of the Constitution and the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the term “sex” in the context of sexual-orientation discrimination. It also invokes Article 21, which protects life and personal liberty, including dignity and individual autonomy.
The argument is that allowing queer adults to live together while denying their partners meaningful participation during medical emergencies would leave the recognition of their relationship incomplete.
The petition therefore seeks either comprehensive guidelines allowing non-heterosexual partners to serve as medical representatives or recognition of an advance medical power of attorney through which a person can authorise their partner to make medical decisions on their behalf.
Centre Has Yet to File Its Response
The case has been pending for more than a year without a counter-affidavit from the Central government.
The petition was initially taken up in July 2025, following which notices were issued to the Union Ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Social Justice and Empowerment, and Law and Justice, along with the National Medical Commission.
The Court had previously given the Centre a final opportunity to respond. During the latest hearing, government counsel sought additional time, explaining that they had recently been appointed to the matter.
Justice Sharma expressed concern over the prolonged delay and directed the government to obtain instructions and file its response within one week.
Also Read: Can Private Sector Salary Affect Non-Creamy Layer Status?
Court Highlights the Problem of Social Stigma
The hearing also touched upon the social difficulties faced by queer couples.
The Court observed that people who choose relationships outside the majority social norm can face rejection and discrimination. Justice Sharma noted that in some cases, families refuse to accept their children’s queer relationships.
Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for the petitioner, argued that constitutional protection cannot stop merely because a relationship is not formally recognised as a marriage.
According to the petitioner’s case, if two adults are permitted to live together, their relationship should not become practically meaningless when one partner is critically ill and the other is unable to participate in medical decisions.
Supreme Court’s LGBTQ+ Rights Jurisprudence Cited
The petitioner’s lawyers referred to Supreme Court decisions dealing with privacy, dignity and the rights of queer persons.
Particular reliance was placed on the constitutional principles developed in cases such as Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, where the Supreme Court recognised important rights of LGBTQ+ persons and struck down the criminalisation of consensual same-sex relations between adults.
The broader legal principle emerging from these decisions is that sexual orientation forms part of an individual’s constitutionally protected identity and autonomy.
However, the recognition of same-sex relationships does not currently mean that same-sex couples have all the legal rights attached to marriage. The present Delhi High Court proceedings therefore focus on a narrower but important question: whether a queer partner should be allowed to act on behalf of their partner in medical matters.
Court Wants Matter Resolved Soon
The Delhi High Court has asked the Centre to file its counter-affidavit within one week and also directed government counsel to obtain a clear position from the concerned departments.
Justice Sharma indicated that the Court would like to conclude the matter around September. The next hearing has been scheduled for September 17, 2026.
Why This Case Matters
The petition raises an important question about the practical meaning of equality for LGBTQ+ couples.
Medical emergencies can require quick decisions, particularly when a patient is unconscious or otherwise unable to communicate. In such circumstances, the person closest to the patient may naturally be their partner. The petition argues that sexual orientation should not by itself prevent that partner from having a recognised role.
The case does not amount to a declaration that same-sex marriage is legally recognised in India. Instead, it concerns whether queer partners should receive a defined legal mechanism to participate in medical decisions and provide consent when authorised by the patient.
The Delhi High Court’s questions to the Centre indicate that the Court is examining whether existing rules adequately reflect constitutional guarantees of dignity, privacy, equality and personal autonomy. The government’s forthcoming response could therefore be important in determining how medical decision-making rules apply to queer couples.