Delhi High Court: In an appeal arising from a dispute concerning the medical condition and treatment of the appellant’s husband, Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya, CJ., and Tejas Karia, J., directed the production of all relevant pathological reports and medical records under the authority of responsible medical officials.
Background
Sonam Wangchuk is a prominent Indian engineer, innovator, education reformer, and environmental activist from Ladakh. He joined the ongoing protest, on 28 June 2026, at Jantar Mantar which stemmed from systemic examination irregularities surrounding national-level exams like NEET, CUET, and CBSE and multiple high-profile paper leaks, most notably involving the NEET-UG medical entrance exam, which compromised the futures of millions of students. The protesters are explicitly demanding the resignation of the Union Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, holding the ministry accountable for failing to secure the examination system.
Sonam Wangchuk, on 18 July 2026, was shifted to the Safdarjung Hospital for “essential medical care” on expert medical advice due to his deteriorating health condition.
The appellant had approached the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction permitting her husband to be shifted from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, or any other medical facility of his choice. However, the Court vide order dated 19 July 2026, declined to grant interim relief and refused to direct the transfer of Sonam Wangchuk to another hospital at this stage with direction to the respondents to file a status report within 3 days.
The Court had held that the decision to shift Sonam Wangchuk to Safdarjung Hospital was a necessary response to his deteriorating medical condition and in compliance with the earlier directions of the Division Bench in Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India, W.P.(C) 9498/2026, dated 16 July 2026, and therefore could not be regarded as arbitrary. Noting the alarming decline in his vital health parameters, the Court found no violation of bodily autonomy since only consented medical treatment had been administered. It further held that transferring him from the protest site to the hospital did not prima facie infringe his personal liberty, as the intervention was solely to preserve his life. Emphasising that “the government was under a bounden duty to take measures to ensure well-being of Mr Sonam Wangchuk”, the Court reiterated that “life of every citizen is precious” and must be protected.
Direction
In the light of overall facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions of the parties, the Court directed that all pathological reports based on samples analysed at Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS, and the private laboratory be placed on record. It directed Respondent 4 Hospital to place on record all medical and health bulletins issued from time to time concerning the health condition of the appellant’s husband. Further, it directed that the reports were to be filed on an affidavit sworn by none other than the Director of Respondent 4 Hospital, thereby ensuring the authenticity of the medical material.
The Court further directed the appellant to file all pathological reports relating to the blood or urine samples of her husband conducted at private laboratories, including the analysis of the sample taken on the date of hearing.
The Court requested the In-charge Director of AIIMS and Additional Professor, Emergency Medicine, AIIMS, to remain present on the next date of hearing for the Court’s assistance. It also permitted the doctor who had been treating the appellant’s husband to be present.
The matter was directed to be listed on 21 July 2026 at 12.30 p.m..
[Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India, LPA 539/2026 with CM Appl. Nos. 45648/2026, 45649/2026 & 45650/2026, decided on 20-7-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate along with Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Ms. Susan Maria Mathew, Ms Jahnvi Singh, Mr. Suryaansh Kishan Razdan and Ms. Ridhi Arora, Advocates along with Petitioner-in-Person.
For the Respondent 1, 3 and 4: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India, Mr. Chetan Sharma, Addl. Solicitor General of India, Mr. Ashish K. Dixit, CGSC with Mr. Umar Hashmi, Mr. Shubham Sharma, Mr. Naman, Ms. Iqra Sheikh, Mr. Abdulla Shahdi & Mr. Ayush Kumar, Advs. along with Dr. Charu Bamba (MS), Dr. Akshay Kumar (Prof. EMD), and Mr. Arin Choudhary, (Head EMD).
For the Respondent 2: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD with Mr. Aryaman Vachher, Adv.
SI Arjun (P.S. Parliament Street).
