The Delhi High Court has granted the Central government a week to respond to a petition advocating for the rights of queer partners to give medical consent and access during medical treatments. The petition, submitted by Arshiya Takkar, a member of the LGBTQ community, challenges the existing guidelines under the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which currently recognize only heterosexual relationships for medical representation.
Legal Framework and Petitioner’s Argument
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the case, questioned why the law acknowledges live-in relationships solely between a man and a woman, and not between same-sex partners. The petition claims that this exclusion constitutes sex-based discrimination, contravening Article 15 of the Indian Constitution. The reference was made to the landmark judgment in Navtej Johar v. Union of India, which affirmed that sexual orientation is part of the definition of ‘sex’ under the Constitution.
The petitioner seeks the formulation of guidelines that would permit non-heterosexual partners to become medical representatives. Alternatively, a court declaration is sought to validate medical power of attorney for queer partners, allowing them to act as medical representatives.
Proceedings and Legal Precedents
The case was initially heard in July 2025, and notices were issued to multiple government bodies, including the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the National Medical Commission. Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, representing the petitioner, highlighted the absence of a counter-affidavit from the Central government, despite an earlier directive to submit it.
During the proceedings, Justice Sharma expressed curiosity about the government’s delay, stressing that societal changes should be reflected in legal frameworks. Kirpal invoked Supreme Court rulings on privacy rights and the legal recognition of queer couples, emphasizing that these couples deserve the rights associated with live-in relationships.
More Read
Implications and Future Steps
Justice Sharma acknowledged the societal stigma faced by same-sex couples and noted that many families do not support such relationships. The court instructed the Central government to file its counter-affidavit within a week to facilitate adjudication.
The court aims to resolve the matter by September, with the next hearing scheduled for September 17. Justice Sharma, reflecting on her tenure as a magistrate, mentioned her non-conviction stance under the former Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, which penalized homosexuality.
Alongside Kirpal, Senior Advocate Shyel Trehan and a team of advocates appeared for the petitioner, reinforcing the argument for equal rights in medical consent for queer partners.
