Delhi High Court Inquires Into Media Leak of Centre’s Affidavit
The Delhi High Court raised a significant question on Thursday regarding how the media accessed the Central government’s written response to a case concerning the recognition of same-sex partners as medical representatives, prior to its official presentation in court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed astonishment at the situation, noting, “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, this case is with me. How does it come to the press first?”
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma clarified that the government did not share the 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,” he stated, indicating that Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta would address the issue later.
Request for Adjournment and Opposition
Justice Sharma acknowledged a request for an adjournment, as the Centre had designated Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear, but he was unavailable. The court questioned the necessity of SG’s presence, particularly since media reports suggested the Centre’s September 10 affidavit supported the plea to allow same-sex couples to consent to medical treatment during emergencies.
ASG Sharma noted that there were concerns with the affidavit, prompting a request to defer the hearing by two to three weeks. Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, representing the petitioner, challenged the delay, emphasizing the prolonged pendency of the issue. “It has been a year. It is an important issue for the people of the country, all the more reason SG should come,” he argued.
Affidavit Not on Record
During proceedings, it was revealed that the Centre’s affidavit had not been officially recorded. The ASG explained that while the affidavit was filed, it faced objections and a copy was provided to the petitioner. The court directed the removal of objections and urged the Centre to officially record the affidavit within two weeks.
More Read
Senior Advocate Kirpal interjected, questioning whether changes were planned for the affidavit. ASG Sharma responded, “I don’t know what it will be. SG will take a call on this.” The court subsequently ordered the government to file the affidavit within two weeks if not already filed.
Background of the Plea
The case stems from a plea filed by a woman married to her partner in New Zealand in 2023. She advocates for the recognition of their union in medical scenarios, pointing out that her partner’s family resides in disparate locations, potentially complicating consent in emergencies. Current regulations require consent from “husband or wife, parent or guardian in case of minors, or the patient himself” for medical interventions.
The plea calls for guidelines enabling hospitals and physicians to recognize non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives. Alternatively, it seeks a declaration that a pre-given medical power of attorney to a non-heterosexual partner suffices as medical representation authority.
More Read
On July 17, 2025, the court issued a notice to the Centre and the National Medical Commission (NMC). Subsequently, on August 20, the Centre was given a one-week deadline to respond. Senior Advocates Saurabh Kirpal and Shyel Trehan represent the petitioner in this pivotal case.
