The fight for queer rights in India plays out in courtrooms. Time and again, the community has been forced to seek protection from the gavel. And for a second, it seemed to finally have a small win on its hands.
It was widely reported that the health ministry recently told the Delhi High Court that same-sex partners may act as medical representatives in case of an emergency. The affidavit was in response to Justice Swarna Kanta Sharma’s question to the Centre in a petition filed by a lesbian couple.
“Relationships of care, dependence and mutual responsibility are not necessarily confined to formally recognised marital or blood relationships,” read the affidavit, reportedly filed on 9 September.
“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,” it said.
The affidavit was met with elation on X.
“I’ve worked for exactly this for over a decade, collaboratively, not confrontationally, with policymakers, never treating the government as the enemy,” wrote activist Ankit Bhuptani.
“I’ve always believed India moves this way, quietly, administratively, and I’d rather have that than nothing. Still no marriage. Still work to do. But I’ll take this,” Bhuptani added, celebrating the win.
The replies were filled with people cheering the government’s stance. Some called it a “victory”; others said that it was a stepping stone to other battles. I see we’re letting ourselves be breadcrumbed even in 2026.
The mystery affidavit
So, has the impossible happened? Is the Indian government finally warming up to the country’s LGBTQ+ community? Let’s not be too hasty. The widely reported affidavit was apparently not placed in the court record before it made it to headlines.
“How is the counter known to the press before I came to know? I am very surprised,” asked Justice Sharma on 17 September.
According to Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, the affidavit was “under objections”, and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had been asked to appear because the government was examining “some issue” with it. ASG Sharma further made it clear that the Centre hadn’t shared the document with the press.
One wonders how the counter found its way to media outlets. Was it some overeager intern who mailed the document? Was it just another crumb, thrown by force of habit? Was it a phantom conjured by the longings of queers desperately clinging to an apathetic government’s udder? Time will tell, as the court has asked the Centre to file the affidavit properly within two weeks, and has listed the matter for 5 October.
Also Read: Indian queers will settle for flower over the bouquet. No marriage equality? Recognise live-in
Landmark or bare minimum?
Another ruling this week might better illuminate where the establishment stands on queer issues. On 14 September, the Allahabad High Court granted police protection to a Hindu-Muslim lesbian couple whose live-in relationship was being threatened by their families. Five points for guessing the Uttar Pradesh government’s stance during the hearing.
“The State said that there was no acceptance for same-sex relationships. It was argued that same-sex relationships affect the natural and traditional framework of society,” legal news bulletin Bar and Bench reported.
Rahul Sangwan, who was one of the advocates for the petitioners during the marriage equality case in 2023, said that the government is, at the very least, drastically inconsistent in its approach to queer rights.
“In the case of UP, if you see the stance the BJP government has taken there, they are practically trying to take us back to a position pre-Navtej. At least, even in Supriyo or in Navtej, the recognition of the relationship is there,” he told ThePrint.
For him, the petition for recognising queer partners as medical representatives is the bare minimum. Even if the government were to end up supporting the plea, it would be giving queer individuals the “low-hanging fruit”.
“It will be very hard for me to say, as an advocate for queer rights, that the government is warming up to the queer community. Actually, it has taken a truly regressive stance with the Trans Amendment Act and other cases, in which it is vehemently contesting queer people,” Sangwan added.
The government opposed decriminalisation in the Section 377 litigation, and strongly opposed judicial recognition of same-sex marriage in 2023. And after begrudgingly accepting the NALSA ruling in 2014, it took an axe to transgender rights in 2026 with the Trans Amendment Act.
Perhaps those who still put faith in the government are in a toxic relationship with a mean dom who’s in it purely for his own selfish pleasure; forget aftercare. Or they’re the greatest optimists of us all. When you’ve placed all your bets on a single-plank bridge, there’s not much to do but hope.
Views are personal.
(Edited by Insha Jalil Waziri)