Delhi High Court: Affidavit Leak on Same-Sex Medical Rights Questioned

• The Delhi High Court questioned how the media obtained the Centre's affidavit on same-sex medical rights before its official submission.
• Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma expressed surprise, noting she read the government's response in the press first.
• Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma denied the government shared the affidavit with the media.
• The court sought clarification on why the Solicitor General needed to appear, given media reports suggested the Centre's affidavit supported the plea.
• The hearing was adjourned because Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was unavailable to attend.

The Delhi High Court expressed profound surprise and concern regarding the premature disclosure of a government affidavit concerning same-sex partners' medical rights to the media, even before it was officially presented in court.

The Delhi High Court recently raised serious concerns regarding the premature disclosure of a Central government affidavit to the media, specifically questioning how news outlets reported on the document before it was formally presented in court. The affidavit in question pertained to a plea seeking the recognition of same-sex partners for the purpose of giving medical consent on each other's behalf during health emergencies.

Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma, presiding over the matter, voiced her astonishment during the proceedings on Thursday. She highlighted that she had encountered reports of the Centre's response in the press, prompting her to inquire how the media gained access to the document prior to the court's own review. The judge explicitly stated her surprise, noting that she read the contents of the reply in the media first, despite the case being under her jurisdiction, and questioned the source of the leak, asking if someone had provided a copy to the press.

In response to the court's pointed queries, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) Chetan Sharma, representing the government, firmly denied that his office or the government had shared the counter affidavit with the media. ASG Sharma emphasized that the government does not typically provide such documents to the press, suggesting that the matter might carry "some other connotation" which he would not elaborate on at that moment, indicating the Solicitor General would address it.

This incident underscores the Delhi High Court's commitment to maintaining the integrity of judicial processes and the proper channels for document submission and review. The court's direct questioning of the ASG highlights a broader concern about court document premature disclosure India, particularly when sensitive government positions are involved in high-profile cases. Such leaks can undermine public trust in legal proceedings and potentially influence public perception before judicial deliberation.

The underlying case, which seeks to grant same-sex partners the right to provide medical consent for each other, touches upon evolving social rights in India. Media reports, which surfaced before the court officially received the Centre's affidavit, indicated that the government's response, dated September 10, actually supported the plea for same-sex couples to be allowed to give consent for medical treatment during emergencies. This reported stance added another layer of complexity to the court's inquiry into the leak.

Given the media's reporting on the Centre's supportive position, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma questioned the necessity for the Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta to appear in the matter. The court sought clarification on why the SG's presence was required if the government's stance, as widely reported, was already in favor of the petitioners. The hearing was subsequently adjourned, as the Centre had requested SG Tushar Mehta to represent them, but he was unavailable to appear on the scheduled day.

This incident highlights the Delhi High Court's concern over the integrity of court proceedings and the premature disclosure of sensitive government affidavits to the media. Lawyers should note the court's emphasis on proper procedural conduct and the potential for such leaks to draw judicial scrutiny, particularly in high-profile cases involving evolving social rights like same-sex partner recognition.

Source: Original reporting via Bar and Bench