In a landmark event for LGBTQ+ rights in India, the Delhi High Court has issued notice on a plea that contests the absence of legal recognition for same-sex partners in medical decision-making. The petitioner's stated purpose is to have directives issued recognizing same-sex partners as valid medical representatives of their partners so that the partners may give consent in medical situations, just as is currently afforded to heterosexual spouses or guardians.
The case foregrounds another immediate requirement to need a fresh consideration of existing medical laws and ethical guidelines that do not accommodate our currently evolving understanding of relationships, dignity, and equality in modern India.
The Court’s Direction
- On Thursday, Justice Sachin Datta had issued notice to the Union Ministries of Health and Family Welfare, Law and Justice, and Social Justice and Empowerment as well as the National Medical Commission (NMC), seeking their response to the issues raised by the petitioner and for serious consideration to be given to the matter.
- This is something the petitioner has brought to the fore as a lacuna in Indian medical and legal systems with respect to rights of non-heterosexual partners in medical emergencies and treatments.
Background of the Case
Arshiya Takkar has now moved the court to seek recognition for same-sex partners as medical representatives. According to her, current Indian medical guidelines deny non-heterosexual partners the right to make decisions on behalf of their life partners or for a person depending on the depth or legitimacy of the relationship.
The scary issue comes into being with Clause 7.16 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002 in which it has been mentioned for any medical procedure:
- consent must be informed,
- that of the patient, or
- that of the husband or wife, or
- that of a parent or the guardian if the patient is minor.
This clause, while appearing very simple, does not consider couples in a same-sex relationship, leaving them at legal risk in moments of medical emergencies.
Alternative Relief Sought: Medical Power of Attorney
- While aware of the existing legal hurdles under the present law, the petitioner has also sought alternative relief. If direct recognition cannot be discovered for a person in a non-heterosexual partnership to act as their medical representative, then Takkar at least wants the court to declare the validity of a Medical Power of Attorney executed in advance.
- The contention here being if in fact the patient appoints a partner of the same sex under a written and legally binding medical power of attorney, the partner should be able to act on behalf of the patient in making medical decisions during treatments or emergencies.
- This appeal stresses the practical and humane factors that are involved in respecting the will and autonomy of persons in choosing who is to act for them in vulnerable situations.
Key Legal Issues Raised
1. Discrimination and Exclusion under Clause 7.16
- The petitioners state that the narrow language of clause 7.16 does not really recognize “partners in a union,” having the effect of excluding non-heterosexual partners from exercising any medical authority. Takkar argues that this exclusion disproportionately affects same-sex couples and denies them a right that is “readily available to heterosexual partners or couples.”
2. Violation of Article 14: Right to Equality
- It was submitted that this omission has no reasonable nexus to any legitimate state-objective and is therefore totally arbitrary in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Article 14 usually guarantees the equality before the law as well as equal protection of the laws to all persons.
- The present legal framework is stated to create unwarranted and unconstitutional distinctions by excluding same-sex partners from the purview of medical decision-making.
3. Violation of Article 15: Prohibition of Discrimination
- The petitioner submits that this legal and systemic exclusion amounts to discrimination based on sex and sexual orientation in violation of Article 15 of the Constitution. Article 15 bars discrimination on the ground of sex, and in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court decided that "sex" includes the sexual orientation.
- Thus, excluding same-sex partners from medical decision-making roles indirectly discriminates based on their sexual orientation.
4. Violation of Article 21: Right to Life and Personal Liberty
- The argument here turns to Article 21, which states that everyone has the right to life and personal freedom, including the right to live in dignity and self-determination. According to Takkar, the right to care and make decisions for a chosen life partner is an important component of a dignified life.
- The right to deny non-heterosexual partners during medical emergencies is to deprive them of one of the most basic rights to love and protect their partner in the most vulnerable moments.
“Systemic Exclusion” of LGBTQ+ Partners
- The present legal situation is described in the plea as a system of exclusion whereby non-heterosexual partners are treated as legal strangers despite their strong emotional and practical bonds. In addition to causing emotional trauma, this systemic erasure exposes affected individuals and their partners to extreme risks in times of emergencies, when swift and mindful decision-making is crucial.
- The absence of legal recognition for same-sex partners in essence strips away any power they would otherwise have in times of crisis to protect their partners or even intervene when a partner's life hangs in the balance.
Broader Implications for LGBTQ+ Rights
- The case questions the judiciary's role and that of the legislature in closing the gulf between constitutional ideals and regulatory frameworks. Whereas the Constitution stands to guarantee the liberty, equality, and non-discrimination, laws, policies, and procedures still stand to reflect outdated notions of family, marriage, and partnership.
- It is argued reasonably in the petition that the state may not only refuse to discriminate but must defend the rights of those vulnerable communities themselves to include recognition of their relationships in the matters that mostly affect the life, health, as well as dignity.
Need for Comprehensive Policy Reforms
The petition also calls upon the National Medical Commission and the Ministries involved to frame clear inclusive guidelines for hospitals and healthcare providers that would ensure that:
- Patients should have the liberty to choose any person to be their medical representative, which includes even a same-sex partner.
- The advance directives or medical power of attorney is abided by and implemented.
- The hospital does not discriminate on the grounds of sexual orientation or status of relationship.
Such changes would not only align medical practices with constitutional rights but also promote ethical, patient-centered care.
The plea filed by Arshiya Takkar before the Delhi High Court represents a landmark moment in the ongoing struggle for equal rights and recognition of LGBTQ+ individuals in India. It challenges deeply entrenched legal and cultural biases and seeks a humane, just, and constitutionally compliant interpretation of who can stand beside a loved one during a health crisis.
The High Court of Delhi to issue notice on the matter signals the judiciary's will to engage in the complex questions of identity, rights, as well as the dignity. As India continues for becoming a truly inclusive democracy, cases like these will always play an important role in shaping the future of equal citizenship as well as human dignity for all.
Sharks of Law is a one-stop legal resource that houses a wealth of knowledge on various laws as well as recent legal news with the best credentials in the field. You can find a lawyer who satisfies your legal needs with this law firm for online consultation. If you require legal advice in any areas of law, the lawyers at Sharks of Law have the experience to provide it.
Email:-helpdesk@sharksoflaw.com
Help Desk:-+91-88770-01993
