Delhi High Court directed the Delhi Government to place all medical reports relating to Sonam Wangchuk on record and requested the AIIMS in-charge Director to assist the Court while continuing the status quo on medical intervention

The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the Delhi Government to place on record all pathological reports relating to Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and the private laboratory chosen by his family, while requesting the AIIMS in-charge Director to personally assist the Court in the matter on Tuesday.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing an appeal filed by Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Sonam Wangchuk, challenging a Single Judge's refusal to shift him from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice.


Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Dr. Angmo, argued that Wangchuk was taken from the protest site to Safdarjung Hospital on July 18 without prior notice to either him or his family and without obtaining his consent. He submitted that the Court's earlier order directing medical monitoring did not authorise his transfer or continued hospitalisation.

Sibal contended that Wangchuk, who was conscious, mentally alert and not under arrest or detention, had a fundamental right to decide whether to continue treatment and to choose the hospital where he wished to receive medical care. Referring to the Supreme Court's Common Cause judgment, he argued that bodily autonomy and informed consent protected an individual's right to refuse medical treatment.

He further submitted that Wangchuk had repeatedly sought copies of his medical reports and requested an independent medical opinion, alleging that the reports were initially not shared with the family. According to Sibal, a blood sample tested by a private laboratory reflected potassium levels within the normal range. He also informed the Bench that Wangchuk had written to the hospital requesting discharge so that he could participate in the culmination of the month-long protest.

Opposing the plea, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Delhi Government, submitted that the State's foremost concern was preservation of life. He informed the Court that the same blood sample had been examined by both Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS to address concerns raised regarding the test results.

Reading out the latest medical bulletin, the Solicitor General stated that Wangchuk remained conscious and haemodynamically stable, with normal pulse, blood pressure and oxygen saturation, but was showing clinical signs of dehydration following prolonged fasting. He informed the Bench that AIIMS had concurred with the treating team's assessment that immediate oral or intravenous fluids and electrolyte therapy were medically indicated, and that an AIIMS doctor had joined the treating team for continuous monitoring.

The bulletin also recorded that Wangchuk had declined intravenous (IV) fluids, oral rehydration solution and medication despite repeated counselling, while the family had not consented to the recommended medical intervention.

During the hearing, the Bench observed that its primary concern was preservation of life. At the same time, it questioned whether the medical assessment could be confined only to potassium levels, noting that one report reflected elevated creatinine levels indicating possible kidney-related concerns.

To ensure complete transparency, the Court directed the Delhi Government to file all pathological reports generated by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and the private laboratory, including the analysis of fresh samples collected on Monday. The Bench further directed that Wangchuk's brother or wife may remain present during collection of fresh blood samples to address concerns regarding the credibility of the testing process.

The Court also proposed that if any medical intervention became necessary, the treating doctors should first consult the AIIMS, in-charge Director before proceeding.

When Sibal requested that nothing be done forcibly until the next hearing, the Bench recorded that no forced medical intervention had been undertaken so far and directed that the same position continue until the matter was taken up again.

Requesting further assistance, the Court asked Dr. Akshay, the AIIMS in-charge Director, to remain present during the next hearing.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 21 at 12:30 PM.

Today morning, the Court had agreed to hear an appeal filed by Sonam Wangchuk's wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, challenging a Single Judge's refusal to shift him from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice.

What happened before the Single Judge bench

In special Sunday hearing, Justice Mini Pushkarna had declined to interfere with the continued treatment of Sonam Wangchuk at Safdarjung Hospital, holding that his transfer to the government hospital owing to his deteriorating medical condition "cannot be termed arbitrary" and that neither his bodily autonomy nor his right to consent was being violated.

She passed the order while hearing a plea filed by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo, seeking his transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital, alleging that his continued confinement at the government hospital was not justified.

Dictating the order in open court, Justice Pushkarna observed that Wangchuk had been on a hunger strike for 17-18 days and noted the Court's division bench’s order dated July 16 directing authorities to preserve his health.

In a related news, the Court today refused urgent listing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a declaration that the Delhi Police acted illegally by removing Sonam Wangchuk from the protest site and shifting him to a hospital.

Appearing for the petitioner, counsel submitted that the police action in shifting Wangchuk from the protest site to the hospital was illegal and sought an urgent hearing. "The action of police officials in removing Sonam Wangchuk from the protest site to the hospital was illegal," the counsel argued.

Questioning the urgency, Chief Justice Upadhyaya observed that the declaration sought by the petitioner did not warrant immediate listing. "That may be declared illegal on Wednesday also. What is so urgent in your matter? You are seeking a declaration that whatever has been done to him is illegal. That declaration may be made day after tomorrow also," the Chief Justice remarked.

Wangchuk has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since June 28 in support of Cockroach Janta party founding president Abhijit Dipke's appeals for the resignation of the Union Education minister. The protestors who have gathered at Jantar Mantar include politicians and student-led organisations such as SFI and AISF. It is also alleged that the protests are being backed by political parties such as the Aam Aadmi Party, with Arvind Kejriwal recently expressing support.

Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia

Hearing Date: July 20, 2026

Tags: