Doctors agree he needs constant monitoring; at the hospital he chooses: Inside Delhi HC order directing Sonam Wangchuk’s transfer to Medanta Hospital

Delhi High Court: In an appeal challenging Single Judge’s order wherein it declined the interim relief in the petition filed by the appellant, Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, seeking transfer of her husband from Safdarjung Hospital to the Medanta Hospital, the Division Bench of Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya*, CJ., and Tejas Karia, J., allowed the appeal to the extent of directing the immediate transfer of the appellant’s husband to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, the hospital of his choice, holding this would be in “fulfilment of the requirements of ensuring his fundamental rights enshrined not only under Article 19 but also under Article 21 of the Constitution”.

Also Read: Delhi HC Directs Production of Comprehensive Medical Record Before Proceeding in Plea Seeking Sonam Wangchuk’s Transfer to Medanta Hospital

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, over alleged examination irregularities and paper leaks, including in NEET-UG; protesters have demanded the Union Education Minister’s resignation, alleging failure to secure the examination system. 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 instituted a writ petition alleging that her husband, was being unlawfully confined at Safdarjung Hospital, kept in isolation, and denied access to his counsel, family members, and doctors who had been examining him earlier. She asserted that such confinement violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. She further sought his immediate discharge, permission to shift him to a hospital of his choice, unrestricted access to him, supply of complete medical records, and restraint against administering any medical intervention without his informed consent or, where necessary, the informed consent of the appellant as his next of kin.

The Single Judge, by order dated 19 July 2026, issued notice but declined interim relief, directing that all decisions concerning the patient’s treatment should be taken strictly in accordance with medical protocols while ensuring continuous monitoring of his vital parameters.

The Single Judge 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.

Aggrieved by the refusal to grant immediate interim relief, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the Divion Bench. The Court by order dated 20 July 2026, had directed the production of all relevant pathological reports and medical records concerning Sonam Wangchuk under the authority of responsible medical officials.

Also Read: Hospitalisation Was to Save His Life, Not Confine Him: Delhi HC Declines to Order Transfer of Sonam Wangchuk to Medanta; He Sets 3 Conditions to Break His Fast

Observations

After examining the medical records filed by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS, and the private laboratory, and after interacting with all 3 medical experts present before it, the Court noted that concerns had been expressed regarding the patient’s low Total Leucocyte Count (TLC) and potassium levels. The Court recorded that there appeared to be a consensus among the doctors that the patient required “constant and continuous monitoring by medical experts”.

The Court recognised that while continuous medical supervision was indispensable, the patient’s constitutional freedoms could not be overlooked. It observed that shifting him to the hospital of his own choice would better protect his fundamental rights while simultaneously ensuring uninterrupted medical care.

The Court specifically held that shifting the patient to Medanta Hospital “will be in fulfilment of the requirements of ensuring his fundamental rights enshrined not only under Article 19 but also under Article 21 of the Constitution”.

Decision

The Court allowed the appeal to the extent of directing the immediate transfer of the appellant’s husband to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram with directions that:

1. The patient should be shifted forthwith to Medanta Hospital.

2. The Director of Medanta Hospital should constitute a team of doctors possessing the requisite expertise to continuously monitor his condition and administer treatment in accordance with established medical norms and protocols.

3. The patient should abide by the treatment and medical advice of the attending doctors.

4. Subject to the hospital’s medical protocols, the appellant should be permitted to visit her husband whenever she desires.

With the consent of the parties, the Court disposed of the connected writ petition and all pending applications and the previously fixed hearing date also stood cancelled.

Also Read: Sonam Wangchuk Shifted to Safdarjung Hospital Amid Hunger Strike: Here is What Delhi High Court Directed in its Medical Monitoring Order

[Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India, LPA 539/2026 with CM Appl. Nos. 45648/2026, 45649/2026 & 45650/2026, decided on 21-7-2026]

*Judgment Authored by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya

Advocates who appeared in this case:

For the Appellant: Mr. Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Bahuli Sharma, Ms. Susan Maria Mathew, Ms. Ridhi Arora, Mr. Yoshit Jain, Mr. Suryaansh Kishan Razdan and Ms. Jahnavi Sindhu, Advs. along with Appellant-in person. Dr. Satish Lamba and Dr. Nitin Baban Dighe

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 AIIMS: Dr. Nikhil Tandon, Director In-charge AIIMS with Dr. Akshay Kumar, Additional Professor, Dr. Manisha B. Thakur, HOD Medicine, Mr. Nishant Kumar (IRS), Deputy Secretary and Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, Panel Counsel

For the Respondent 2: Mr. Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD with Mr. Aryaman Vachher, Adv.

SI Akanksha Bhargava, PS Parliament Street.