The Delhi High Court questioned the legal inconsistency that allows same-sex partners to live together and be in a relationship, yet denies them the right to give medical consent for each other during emergencies. The court noted that if the law recognises such a relationship at all, withholding the right to medical proxy consent amounts to a constitutional anomaly touching Articles 14, 19, and 21, particularly the right to life, dignity, and personal autonomy.

This case sits at the intersection of three constitutional guarantees — Article 14 (equality), Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of expression including sexual identity), and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty including dignity and autonomy).

The Supreme Court in Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India (2018) decriminalised consensual same-sex relations under Section 377 IPC, holding that sexual orientation is an essential attribute of identity protected under Article 21. The Court further held in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) that privacy, including decisional autonomy over intimate choices, is a fundamental right.

Medical proxy consent — the right to authorise treatment on behalf of an incapacitated person — is typically extended only to 'next of kin' under hospital protocols and statutes like the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017. Same-sex partners, lacking legal recognition of marriage or civil union (the Supreme Court declined to recognise same-sex marriage in Supriyo v. Union of India, 2023), fall outside this category. The Delhi HC's observation highlights the gap: the State cannot simultaneously acknowledge a person's right to a same-sex relationship under Article 21 and then deny the practical incidents of that relationship without a compelling State interest and a proportionate means.

The proportionality test — drawn from Modern Dental College v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2016) and refined in Puttaswamy — requires the court to ask: (1) Is there a legitimate aim? (2) Is the measure rationally connected to that aim? (3) Is it the least restrictive option? (4) Does it strike a fair balance between rights and public interest? The HC's query signals that denying proxy consent to same-sex partners may fail steps 3 and 4.