Delhi HC Division Bench Orders Sonam Wangchuk Shifted to Medanta Hospital, Cites Articles 19 and 21

The Delhi High Court's Division Bench directed that Sonam Wangchuk be immediately shifted from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, holding the transfer necessary to fulfil his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

On 21 July 2026, a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia disposed of Letters Patent Appeal No. 539 of 2026, directing the immediate transfer of Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram. The Bench found that shifting him to a hospital of his choice would fulfil the requirements of his fundamental rights under both Article 19 and Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, stated on behalf of the Union that the respondents had no objection to the hospitalisation at Medanta Hospital. The underlying writ petition was also disposed of on consent.

The Dispute Before the High Court

The appeal arose from an intra-court challenge to an order dated 19 July 2026 passed by a learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) 9770/2026, a writ petition filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo, who is the wife of Sonam Wangchuk.

The writ petition sought, among other reliefs, a declaration that Wangchuk's continued confinement at Safdarjung Hospital — in isolation and without access to his counsel or the doctors who had been examining him — was illegal, unconstitutional, and violative of Articles 19 and 21. It further sought immediate, unrestricted access by the petitioner and her counsel to Wangchuk; his transfer to a hospital of his choice; production of complete and contemporaneous medical records; and a restraint on administering any medicine or medical intervention without his free and informed consent or, if he was incapable of consenting, without the informed consent of the petitioner as his next of kin.

The Single Judge, by the order of 19 July 2026, issued notice but declined to grant any interim order at that stage. The Single Judge directed the parties to file a status report and reply, required that decisions on Wangchuk's medical condition be taken as per strict medical protocols, and directed continuous monitoring of his vitals. Dissatisfied with the refusal of interim relief, the appellant filed the Letters Patent Appeal.

The Medical Picture and the Court's Examination

When the Division Bench took up the appeal on 20 July 2026, it directed that all pathological reports based on samples analysed at the laboratories of Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and a private laboratory be filed on affidavit, to be sworn in by none other than the Director of Safdarjung Hospital. The appellant was also directed to file pathological reports from a private laboratory, including analysis of samples collected that day.

The Bench specifically requested that the In-charge Director of AIIMS and Dr. Akshay Kumar, Additional Professor, Emergency Medicine, AIIMS be present at the hearing on 21 July 2026. The doctor the appellant had been consulting was also permitted to be present.

On 21 July 2026, Dr. Nikhil Tandon, In-charge Director of AIIMS, and Dr. Akshay Kumar appeared in compliance. Dr. Satish Lamba, the doctor the appellant had been consulting, was also present. Two sets of documents were filed on behalf of the appellant: one containing medical reports from Oncquest Laboratories based on blood and urine sample analysis, and another containing certain statements of Wangchuk himself along with a communication dated 20 July 2026 from the officiating Medical Superintendent of Vardhman Mahavir Medical College and Safdarjung Hospital. An affidavit sworn in by the Director of Safdarjung Hospital was also filed and taken on record.

The Bench interacted with all three doctors present. The interaction revealed that the primary medical concerns centred on a low Total Leucocyte Count and the potassium level in Wangchuk's blood samples. There was consensus among the doctors that he required constant and continuous monitoring by medical experts.

The Fundamental Rights Argument

Mr. Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate for the appellant, pressed the argument that Wangchuk's continued treatment at Safdarjung Hospital, without access to counsel or the doctors of his choice, amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21. The core of this submission was that the choice of hospital and treating physician, and the right to access one's own counsel, are not merely matters of personal preference but are protected constitutional entitlements.

The Division Bench accepted this framing. Having regard to the submissions by counsel and the opinions and concerns expressed by the doctors, the Bench held that Wangchuk ought to be shifted to a hospital of his choice. During the hearings on both 20 and 21 July 2026, the appellant stated that Wangchuk could be medically cared for at Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, and that this was the hospital of his choice.

The Bench recorded its opinion that shifting Wangchuk 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.”

Directions Issued

The Division Bench directed that Wangchuk be immediately shifted to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram. The Director of Medanta Hospital was directed to form a team of doctors with requisite expertise to constantly monitor Wangchuk's medical condition and administer medication as required, in accordance with established medical norms and protocols. Wangchuk was directed to abide by the line of treatment and advice of the team of doctors attending him at Medanta Hospital.

On the question of access, the Bench directed that, in addition to the medical protocol observed at Medanta Hospital, the appellant — Gitanjali J. Angmo — shall be allowed to visit her husband as and when she desires.

The Bench also placed its appreciation on record for the assistance rendered by Dr. Tandon and Dr. Akshay Kumar from AIIMS, and by Dr. Lamba.

Outcome

The Letters Patent Appeal LPA 539/2026 was disposed of in the terms set out above. All pending applications in the appeal also stood disposed of. With the consent of counsel for all parties, the underlying writ petition W.P.(C) No. 9770/2026, along with its pending applications, was also disposed of. The date of 24 July 2026 that had been fixed in the writ petition was cancelled.