Delhi HC Queries How Media Got Centre's Affidavit Before It Saw It

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 media before it was placed before the Court. Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma said the Court was surprised when it read the Centre's reply in the media, and asked how the counter-affidavit was known to the press before she came to know of it. ^{[1] [1] [2]}

Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told the Court that the government had not shared the counter-affidavit with the media, saying the government does not give it to the press. He sought an adjournment, stating the Centre had asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to appear in the matter but he was unable to appear that day. The Court asked why the SG had to appear when, as per media reports, the Centre in its affidavit dated September 10 had backed the plea for allowing same-sex couples to give consent for medical treatment during health emergencies. ^{[1] [1] [2] [2] [2]}

Senior Advocate Saurabh Kirpal, appearing for the petitioner, opposed the adjournment, saying the matter had remained pending for a long time and that an important issue for the people of the country was all the more reason for the SG to appear. The Court was informed that the Centre's counter-affidavit was not on record; the ASG said it had been filed but was under objections, and that a copy had been provided to the petitioner. ^{[1] [2] [2]}

When the Court asked the Centre to remove the objections and place the affidavit on record, the ASG said the order could record that it was not on record and that the Solicitor General would take a call on it. Kirpal said that if the government planned to change the counter, it should say so. The Court then recorded in its order that the government's affidavit was not on record and directed that it be filed, if not already filed, within two weeks. Bar & Bench reported the matter will be heard next on October 5. ^{[1] [1] [2]}

The underlying plea was filed by a woman who married her partner in New Zealand in 2023, according to Bar & Bench. She has argued that recognition of their union is critically needed in the medical context, particularly because her partner's immediate family members reside in different states or countries, making them potentially inaccessible during a medical emergency. The plea says existing regulations mandate consent of a "husband or wife, parent or guardian in case of minors, or the patient himself", and seeks guidelines directing hospitals and physicians to recognise non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives, or alternatively a declaration on medical power of attorney. ^{[1] [1] [1] [2] [2]}

The Indian Express reported that the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare filed its response on September 9 and said those in a "non-heterosexual/ queer relationship" cannot be excluded from the existing framework of nominating partners to take medical decisions on their behalf merely on account of sex, gender or sexual orientation. Bar & Bench, meanwhile, referred to an affidavit dated September 10 in the same matter, a date discrepancy the captured material does not resolve. ^{[3] [1]}