It has, however, maintained that the term “spouse”, under Indian marriage laws, only applies to heterosexual couples, and relied on the Supreme Court's 2023 five-judge bench decision against legalising same-sex marriages.Supporting a plea filed by a same-sex couple in the Delhi High Court, the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare has said that those in a “non-heterosexual/ queer relationship” cannot be excluded from the existing legal framework of nominating their partners to take medical decisions on their behalf, “merely on account of sex, gender or sexual orientation”.The ministry filed its response on September 9, ahead of the next hearing on Thursday. On August 20, the HC had questioned the Centre for its failure to respond to the petition.The petition, filed in July 2025 by a same-sex couple who got married in New Zealand in December 2023, said there is “no framework which grants or recognises the rights of non-heterosexual couples to act as a medical representative of their respective partners during medical treatment/ emergencies.”The ministry, in its response, has affirmed that courts as well as legislation, like the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, have recognised that a medical representative “can be any person”, and not necessarily a blood relative or a “spouse” only.“Where a competent adult has nominated or otherwise authorised his/ her partner to act on his/ her behalf in the event of incapacity, there appears to be no medical or ethical rationale for excluding such person merely on account of sex, gender or sexual orientation of the partners, or because their union does not fall within the conventional understanding of marriage, subject always to applicable law and appropriate safeguards,” it has said.It has, however, maintained that the term “spouse”, under Indian marriage laws, only applies to heterosexual couples, and relied on the Supreme Court’s 2023 five-judge bench decision against legalising same-sex marriages.The health ministry has said that the Ministry of Finance, in 2024, had also clarified that there was no restriction on same-sex couples on opening joint bank accounts, and the Department of Food and Public Distribution had also enabled them to be treated as members of the same household for the purpose of ration cards.Story continues below this ad“These measures demonstrate a consistent administrative recognition that relationships of care, dependence and mutual responsibility are not necessarily confined to formally recognised marital or blood relationships. In this backdrop, permitting a competent adult to nominate his/ her partner, including a partner in a non-heterosexual/ queer relationship, to take medical decisions on his/ her behalf in the event of incapacity would constitute a logical and tailored extension of the same principle, while respecting patient autonomy,” the health ministry said.Earlier, the Income Tax department had opposed pleas filed by same-sex couples in the Bombay and Karnataka High Courts, seeking to declare the term ‘spouse’ as defined in the Income Tax Act as unconstitutional, in relation to a provision that grants tax exemption on gifts exchanged between spouses. It had held that Indian marriage laws recognise only heterosexual couples as spouses.Sohini Ghosh is a Senior Correspondent at The Indian Express. Previously based in Ahmedabad covering Gujarat, she recently moved to the New Delhi bureau, where she primarily covers legal developments at the Delhi High Court Professional Profile Background: An alumna of the Asian College of Journalism (ACJ), she previously worked with ET NOW before joining The Indian Express. Core Beats: Her reporting is currently centered on the Delhi High Court, with a focus on high-profile constitutional disputes, disputes over intellectual property, criminal and civil cases, issues of human rights and regulatory law (especially in the areas of technology and healthcare). Earlier Specialty: In Gujarat, she was known for her rigorous coverage in the beats of crime, law and policy, and social justice issues, including the 2002 riot cases, 2008 serial bomb blast case, 2016 flogging of Dalits in Una, among others. She has extensively covered health in the state, including being part of the team that revealed the segregation of wards at the state’s largest government hospital on lines of faith in April 2020. With Ahmedabad being a UNESCO heritage city, she has widely covered urban development and heritage issues, including the redevelopment of the Sabarmati Ashram Recent Notable Articles (Late 2025) Her recent reporting from the Delhi High Court covers major political, constitutional, corporate, and public-interest legal battles: High-Profile Case Coverage She has extensively covered the various legal battles - including for compensation under the aegis of North East Delhi Riots Claims Commission - pertaining to the 2020 northeast Delhi riots, as well as 1984 anti-Sikh riots. She has also led coverage at the intersection of technology and governance, and its impact on the citizenry, from, and beyond courtrooms — such as the government’s stakeholder consultations for framing AI-Deepfake policy. Signature Style Sohini is recognized for her sustained reporting from courtrooms and beyond. She specialises in breaking down dense legal arguments to make legalese accessible for readers. Her transition from Gujarat to Delhi has seen her expand her coverage on regulatory, corporate and intellectual property law, while maintaining a strong commitment to human rights and lacuna in the criminal justice system. X (Twitter): @thanda_ghosh ... Read More Tags:delhi high court