Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: The instant writ petition was filed by the petitioner seeking direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to shift him from jail to a well-equipped multi-specialty private hospital such as Indraprastha Apollo Hospital, at his own expense, to permit one family member to remain with him as an attendant in view of his stated inability to attend to his daily needs on his own and to ensure that the Delhi Armed Police (DAP) does not interfere in the course of his medical treatment. A Single- Judge Bench of Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma, J., rejected petitioner’s petition, holding that a prisoner cannot seek transfer to a private hospital of choice merely on the basis of dissatisfaction with the behaviour of medical staff in the absence of any material indicating deficiency, inadequacy, or negligence in medical treatment being provided by competent government institutions.
However, the Court, in the interest of justice, allowed the limited relief of permitting the petitioner to be taken, on a specified date, to Apollo Hospital for physical examination by specialists in Endocrinology and Neurology for the purpose of obtaining a second medical opinion.
The petitioner’s grievance was not confined to his medical condition alone. He alleged that his experience at AIIMS had been “disastrous,” citing non-cordial behaviour of hospital staff, humiliation by doctors, and lack of adequate attention. He contended that such treatment justified his request to be shifted to a private hospital.
The medical status report submitted by jail authorities revealed that the petitioner was suffering from multiple serious ailments including Type-II diabetes mellitus, coronary artery disease, hypertension, Parkinson’s disease, carcinoma oesophagus (post-operative), and other complications. Despite treatment at premier government hospitals such as AIIMS and Safdarjung Hospital, he continued to complain of breathlessness, chest pain, persistent cough, and fluctuating blood sugar and blood pressure levels.
The Court examined the entire record and noted that the petitioner had consistently been under medical supervision at reputed government hospitals and had been provided regular treatment, specialist consultations, and emergency care.
It was observed that even in earlier proceedings, neither the petitioner nor the record indicated any deficiency in the line of treatment or any medical negligence. The Court emphasised that AIIMS is a premier medical institution well-equipped to address complex medical needs. The Court agreed with the trial court that the grievance pertained primarily to the “behavioural response of the doctor and not medical completion or line of treatment” and opined that dissatisfaction with interpersonal conduct of hospital staff,“in the absence of any material indicating deficiency in medical care, cannot justify a direction for shifting the petitioner to a private hospital.”
The Court also considered the earlier orders of the Supreme Court and the High Court, which had consistently directed treatment at AIIMS, with only limited liberty to obtain a second opinion.
However, with regard to the second opinion, the Court found merit in the petitioner’s submission that private doctors had insisted on physical examination. Recognizing that the petitioner was suffering from multiple serious ailments, the Court held that he was entitled to appropriate medical evaluation.
The Court rejected the primary prayer for transfer to a private hospital, holding that there was no merit in the absence of any evidence of inadequate treatment. However, the Court, in the interest of justice, allowed the limited relief of permitting the petitioner to be taken, on a specified date, to Apollo Hospital for physical examination by specialists in Endocrinology and Neurology for the purpose of obtaining a second medical opinion. It permitted the petitioner’s son to remain present during such examination.
The Court further directed that the report obtained from Apollo Hospital should be placed before AIIMS for consideration in further treatment, the petitioner’s treatment should continue at AIIMS and jail authorities should ensure prompt medical care and timely intimation to family members in case of hospitalization.
[Abubacker E v. NIA, W.P.(CRL) 787/2026, decided on 27-3-2026]
*Judgment by Justice Dr. Swarana Kanta Sharma
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Satyakam, Mr. Rehan Ghalib Khan, Mr. Abdul Shukoor, Mr. Shereef K.A.and Mohd. Arif Hussain, Advs., Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Rahul Tyagi, SPP NIA with Mr. Jatin Khatri ASPP, Mr. Vikas Walia, Mr. Amit Rohila, Advs., Counsel for the Respondents
