The Central Government has submitted before the Delhi High Court that a competent adult should be permitted to nominate their partner, including a person in a non-heterosexual or queer relationship, to make healthcare decisions on their behalf if they subsequently become incapacitated. The submission was made in an affidavit filed by the National Medical Commission (NMC) on behalf of the Union Ministry of Health & Family Welfare in response to a petition moved by Arshiya Takkar, which seeks recognition of non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives and authorization for them to give consent in medical situations.
The Centre stated that it recognises and respects the constitutional guarantees of dignity, privacy, autonomy, equality, and individual choice available to all persons, including members of the LGBTQIA+ community, and clarified that its response is not intended to question the constitutional protection available to persons in queer relationships. It emphasized that where a competent adult has nominated or otherwise authorised their partner to act on their behalf in the event of incapacity, there is no medical or ethical rationale for excluding such person merely on account of the sex, gender, or sexual orientation of the partners, or because their union does not conform to the conventional understanding of marriage.
The Government further submitted that permitting a competent adult to nominate their partner, including a queer or non-heterosexual partner, to take medical decisions in the event of incapacity would constitute a logical and tailored extension of the principle that relationships of care, dependence, and mutual responsibility are not necessarily confined to formally recognised marital or blood relationships. This approach, the Centre said, would respect patient autonomy and ensure continuity of care, subject to appropriate safeguards and applicable law.
In the absence of prior nomination, the Centre added that the partner may also be considered, in appropriate circumstances and subject to applicable law, verification, and safeguards, as a person in a relationship of care or next friend for the purposes of medical decision-making. Such an interpretation, while preserving patient safety and due process, would advance the constitutional values of autonomy, dignity, equality, and non-discrimination.
The Centre relied upon Clause 7.16 of the Indian Medical Council (Professional Conduct, Etiquette and Ethics) Regulations, 2002, which contemplates obtaining consent from the patient themselves or, in specified circumstances, from a spouse, parent, or guardian. It argued that this clause may be read harmoniously and purposively with the existing legal framework so as not to exclude, merely on account of sex, gender, sexual orientation, or absence of a formally recognised marital relationship, a partner duly nominated or authorised by a competent adult patient to take healthcare decisions on their behalf upon subsequent incapacity.
The Government stated that the reliefs sought in the petition—framing guidelines to recognise non-heterosexual partners as medical representatives and declaring that an advance medical power of attorney given to such a partner is sufficient to permit them to act as the duly constituted medical representative during treatment or emergencies—are substantially capable of being accommodated within the existing legal and ethical framework, provided applicable safeguards are observed.
The Centre urged the court to examine the petitioner’s prayers in light of existing statutory provisions, judicial pronouncements, and government policy measures, with the ultimate aim of ensuring that medical decision-making respects patient autonomy while upholding safety and due process. The matter remains pending before the Delhi High Court for further hearing.