Introduction:
The Delhi High Court has once again been called upon to examine the delicate balance between an individual’s right to bodily autonomy and the State’s constitutional obligation to preserve life. In a case involving activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was admitted to Safdarjung Hospital following a prolonged hunger strike, the Court sought complete medical records from multiple hospitals before deciding whether he should be permitted to shift to a private hospital of his choice. The proceedings arose in Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India & Others, an appeal filed by Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Sonam Wangchuk, challenging the refusal of a Single Judge to permit Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a private medical facility.
The matter was heard by a Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia. Rather than immediately deciding the request for transfer, the Bench adopted a cautious approach and directed that all pathological reports prepared by Safdarjung Hospital, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), and a private laboratory be placed before it through affidavits. The Court also directed senior medical professionals from AIIMS, along with the family’s treating doctor, to remain present during the next hearing to assist the Court in understanding Wangchuk’s medical condition.
The litigation has its genesis in Wangchuk’s month-long hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, undertaken in solidarity with the Cockroach Janta Party and students protesting the alleged NEET paper leak. During the protest, concerns arose regarding his deteriorating health. Earlier, on 16 July, the same Division Bench had directed the Union Government to ensure that Wangchuk received daily clinical monitoring and necessary medical treatment if his condition required intervention.
Subsequently, on 18 July, Delhi Police removed Wangchuk from the protest site and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital for medical treatment. According to his family, this transfer occurred without adequate prior intimation and without sharing medical reports allegedly indicating an emergency requiring compulsory hospitalization. After a Single Judge declined the family’s request to transfer Wangchuk to a private hospital, his wife preferred the present intra-court appeal before the Division Bench.
The controversy before the High Court therefore extends beyond a simple request for hospital transfer. It raises fundamental constitutional questions concerning the scope of personal autonomy under Article 21 of the Constitution, the doctrine of informed consent in medical treatment, the extent of the State’s responsibility to preserve life, and the role of judicial oversight when competing constitutional values intersect. The Court was consequently required to examine whether a conscious individual, who is not under arrest or preventive detention, can insist upon choosing his own medical treatment and healthcare institution even when public authorities believe continued hospitalization is necessary for preserving his life.
At the same time, the Court also had to ensure that its decision rested upon objective medical evidence rather than competing assertions made by either side. It was in this context that the Bench sought comprehensive medical records from multiple institutions before proceeding further with the appeal.
Arguments of the Parties:
On behalf of the appellant, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal submitted that the manner in which Sonam Wangchuk was removed from the protest site and admitted to Safdarjung Hospital raised serious concerns regarding transparency and respect for individual autonomy. According to the appellant, Wangchuk had been taken away from Jantar Mantar under the purported cover of the earlier order passed by the Division Bench directing daily medical monitoring, even though no medical reports demonstrating an immediate life-threatening emergency had been supplied either to Wangchuk or to his family.
The appellant argued that throughout the period of hospitalization, neither Wangchuk nor his relatives had been provided copies of the medical reports allegedly indicating a dangerous fall in potassium levels. Instead, they were merely informed orally regarding certain laboratory values without being furnished the underlying documents. This lack of disclosure, according to the appellant, undermined the confidence of the patient and his family in the medical decision-making process.
It was further submitted that Wangchuk remained conscious, fully oriented, and capable of making informed decisions regarding his own medical treatment. Counsel argued that there was no justification for compelling him to remain in a government hospital against his wishes when he desired treatment at a private institution of his own choice. According to the appellant, the grievance was not directed against medical treatment itself but against the denial of the patient’s right to exercise meaningful control over decisions affecting his own body.
Senior Advocate Sibal emphasised that Wangchuk had specifically requested that no medical intervention be undertaken without his informed consent. He further pointed out that subsequent laboratory reports available with the family reflected potassium levels within the normal range, thereby raising doubts regarding the necessity of continued involuntary hospitalization. Wangchuk had also written to the hospital authorities requesting permission to leave so that he could participate in the culmination of his month-long protest, but his request had not been accepted.
The appellant accordingly framed the dispute as one involving bodily autonomy and informed consent. Counsel questioned whether a conscious individual, who was neither under arrest nor under any form of lawful detention, could legally be prevented from choosing his preferred healthcare provider. He submitted that personal liberty under Article 21 includes the right to determine whether medical treatment should be accepted, declined, or obtained from a hospital of one’s own choosing.
To reinforce this submission, reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Common Cause v. Union of India, wherein the Court recognised the constitutional significance of bodily autonomy, informed consent, dignity, and the right of competent individuals to participate in decisions relating to their medical treatment. According to the appellant, these constitutional values could not be overridden merely because the authorities believed continued hospitalization to be preferable.
During the hearing, however, the Division Bench questioned whether doctors should postpone necessary medical intervention until a patient’s condition deteriorates to the point of requiring intensive care. The Court observed that medical professionals are expected to act proactively on the basis of clinical assessment rather than waiting until the patient reaches a critical stage.
Responding to these observations, Senior Advocate Sibal clarified that the family was not opposing medical treatment. Instead, their primary concern was the absence of transparency and the failure to share medical reports upon which important decisions regarding Wangchuk’s hospitalization had been based. He described the situation as one involving a “trust deficiency” rather than opposition to professional medical care.
On behalf of the Union Government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta adopted a balanced constitutional position. He accepted that bodily autonomy ordinarily enjoys paramount importance and that competent individuals possess the right to make decisions concerning their own medical treatment. Nevertheless, he argued that this principle is not absolute and must sometimes be balanced against the State’s constitutional obligation to preserve human life.
According to the Solicitor General, Wangchuk’s deteriorating medical condition had the potential to create wider public consequences extending beyond the individual concerned. If his health were permitted to deteriorate significantly, it could result in serious law-and-order implications. Consequently, the State had both the authority and the responsibility to ensure that appropriate medical treatment was provided before irreversible harm occurred.
The Union further informed the Court that blood samples had not been examined solely by Safdarjung Hospital. Independent testing had also been conducted by AIIMS as well as a private laboratory, and according to the Government, the findings across these institutions were substantially consistent. This, it was argued, demonstrated that the medical assessment was objective and not confined to a single institution.
The respondents therefore urged the Court to proceed cautiously and not interfere with ongoing medical management unless reliable medical evidence established that transfer to another hospital would better serve Wangchuk’s interests without jeopardising his health.
Court’s Judgment:
At the present stage, the Delhi High Court refrained from deciding the substantive issue of whether Sonam Wangchuk should be permitted to shift from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital. Instead, the Division Bench considered it necessary to first obtain complete and reliable medical material before arriving at any conclusion concerning his treatment or transfer.
The Court recognised that conflicting claims had been advanced regarding Wangchuk’s medical condition. While one report prepared by Safdarjung Hospital indicated that his potassium level had fallen to 2.8, another report relied upon by the appellant reflected a reading of 3.5. In view of these differing laboratory values, the Court considered it essential to examine the complete medical record rather than rely upon isolated reports.
Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya observed that pathological findings cannot be evaluated in isolation. Laboratory reports must always be interpreted alongside the patient’s overall clinical condition, including his physical symptoms, medical history, and professional clinical assessment by treating physicians. The Court therefore emphasised that numerical laboratory values alone cannot determine whether hospitalization continues to be medically necessary.
To ensure complete transparency, the Division Bench directed Safdarjung Hospital to place on record all pathological reports, laboratory findings, and health bulletins issued concerning Wangchuk’s treatment by filing an affidavit before the Court. Similarly, the appellant was directed to produce the reports of tests conducted through private laboratories so that all available medical evidence could be examined together.
Recognising the importance of independent expert assistance, the Court also requested the Director-in-Charge of AIIMS as well as Dr. Akshay, Head of the Emergency Medicine Department at AIIMS, to remain personally present during the next hearing. The Court further directed that the doctor consulted by Wangchuk’s family should also assist the Bench. By requiring participation from doctors associated with both government institutions and the appellant’s side, the Court sought to ensure an objective and balanced assessment of Wangchuk’s medical condition.
The Bench also made important observations concerning the competing constitutional principles involved in the dispute. While acknowledging the significance of bodily autonomy and informed consent, the Court simultaneously emphasised that its foremost concern remained preservation of human life. Chief Justice Upadhyaya observed that the Court’s immediate priority was “to save his life first,” indicating that any decision regarding transfer or discharge would necessarily depend upon a careful evaluation of medical necessity.
The Court also indicated that it was not persuaded by the suggestion that medical professionals should delay treatment until the patient’s condition became critical. Such an approach, according to the Bench, would be inconsistent with accepted medical practice, which requires timely intervention based upon professional clinical judgment rather than waiting for an emergency to fully develop.
During the hearing, the appellant requested that Wangchuk be transferred to Medanta Hospital and suggested that medical reports be shared with doctors from that institution. The Court, however, expressed reservations regarding this proposal. It observed that permitting doctors from outside institutions to direct or supervise ongoing treatment at another hospital would run contrary to established medical protocols governing hospital administration and patient care.
Although the Court noted that medical reports ought to have been shared with Wangchuk’s family, it refrained from recording any adverse findings against the treating hospital at this preliminary stage. Instead, it considered it appropriate to first examine the complete documentary record before evaluating the competing allegations regarding transparency, informed consent, and medical necessity.
The Bench accordingly directed that all relevant pathological reports prepared by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS, and the private laboratory be formally placed before the Court through affidavits. It fixed the matter for further hearing and directed the concerned medical experts to remain present to assist the Court in evaluating Wangchuk’s health status.
The order reflects a careful exercise of judicial restraint. Rather than immediately accepting either the appellant’s claim of bodily autonomy or the State’s assertion of medical necessity, the Court chose to base its eventual decision upon comprehensive expert medical evidence. In doing so, it recognised that constitutional questions concerning informed consent, personal liberty, and the State’s duty to preserve life cannot be decided in the abstract but must instead be assessed against the factual realities of the patient’s medical condition.
The case therefore remains pending before the Delhi High Court. The outcome is likely to provide further judicial guidance on the interaction between Article 21, the doctrine of informed consent, the constitutional principle of bodily autonomy recognised in Common Cause v. Union of India, and the State’s obligation to protect life when a competent adult voluntarily undertakes a prolonged hunger strike. Until then, the Court has ensured that its ultimate decision will rest upon complete medical transparency, expert clinical assistance, and a careful balancing of individual liberty with public responsibility.