Delhi High Court Directs Sonam Wangchuk's Shift to Medanta Hospital, Citing Articles 19 and 21 - 2026-07-21

Delhi High Court Directs Sonam Wangchuk's Shift to Medanta Hospital, Citing Articles 19 and 21

In a ruling that underscores the constitutional boundaries of medical detention, the High Court of Delhi has ordered the immediate transfer of Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram — the facility of his choice. The Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia held that the transfer directly serves the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.

A 20-Day Confinement Under Legal Scrutiny

The case traces back to a writ petition filed by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo , who alleged that her husband had been confined at Safdarjung Hospital in isolation for over 20 days — cut off from his counsel and from the doctors who had been treating him. The petition sought his immediate discharge, unrestricted access for family and lawyers, transfer to a hospital of his own choosing, complete medical records on a real-time basis, and a bar on administering any treatment without informed consent.

On July 19, 2026, the Single Judge issued notice but declined interim relief, directing instead that medical decisions follow strict protocols and that the patient's vitals be continuously monitored. The appellant then approached the Division Bench in an intra-court appeal.

Court Summons Medical Experts for a Deeper Inquiry

On July 20, the Bench directed that all pathological reports — from Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS, and private laboratories — be filed on affidavit by the hospital's Director. The Court also summoned Dr. Nikhil Tandon , In-charge Director of AIIMS, and Dr. Akshay Kumar , Additional Professor of Emergency Medicine at AIIMS, for assistance. Dr. Satish Lamba, the physician the appellant had been consulting, was likewise invited to be present.

When the matter was heard on July 21, the doctors' input proved decisive. The Bench noted specific clinical red flags — low Total Leucocyte Count (TLC) and abnormal potassium levels — and recorded: "There appears to be a consensus that the husband of the Appellant needs constant and continuous monitoring by medical experts."

Why the Transfer Wasn't Merely a Clinical Decision

Senior counsel for the appellant pressed the argument that continued confinement at Safdarjung Hospital, without family access, violated the constitutional freedoms of movement and personal liberty. The Bench agreed in unambiguous terms:

> "We are of the opinion that husband of the Appellant ought to be shifted to a hospital of his choice."

Clarifying the constitutional frame of its reasoning, the Court added 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."

The Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Union, confirmed the respondents had no objection to the hospitalisation at Medanta.

The Ruling: Transfer, Monitoring, and Unrestricted Family Access

The Court directed the immediate transfer of Wangchuk to Medanta Hospital, where a dedicated team of doctors will monitor his condition and administer treatment strictly per established medical norms. The patient is to abide by the treating team's advice. Crucially, the appellant was granted unrestricted visiting rights — "she shall be allowed to visit her husband as and when she desires."

Both the appeal and the underlying writ petition were disposed of, with the Bench recording its appreciation for the doctors from AIIMS and Dr. Lamba for their assistance to the Court.

Implications

The judgment reinforces a vital principle: medical treatment, however necessary, cannot be used as a cover to insulate a patient from family, counsel, or the right to choose one's healthcare provider. Hospitalisation, the Court has made clear, must respect both clinical imperatives and constitutional guarantees — and where the two appear to conflict, the Constitution prevails. The ruling could serve as a benchmark for future cases involving patients held in institutional care against their family's wishes.