Enforcement of Article 21 Rights through Hospital Transfer Based on Patient Choice and Medical Necessity

In brief

The question

1. Whether the continued medical confinement of the Appellant’s husband at a state-designated hospital violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution

The court held

The Court held that protecting the husband's fundamental rights necessitated his transfer to a hospital of his choice

It also directed

It directed that he be immediately shifted to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram, where a specialized team of doctors must monitor him

The Court further ordered that the Appellant be granted unrestricted access to her husband according to hospital protocols

Consequently, the Appeal and the underlying Writ Petition were disposed of, and the hearing date of 24.07.2026 was cancelled

01Facts

The Appellant filed a Writ Petition [W.P.(C) 9770/2026] seeking the release of her husband, Shri Sonam Wangchuk, from alleged illegal confinement at Safdarjung Hospital

p. 2

She sought his transfer to a medical facility of his choice, citing violations of Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution

pp. 2-3

On 19.07.2026, a Single Judge issued notice but declined interim relief, directing medical monitoring instead

p. 3

Medical reports from Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS, and private labs indicated concerns regarding low Total Leucocyte Count (TLC) and potassium levels, necessitating continuous monitoring

pp. 4-5

02Issues

i.1. Whether the continued medical confinement of the Appellant’s husband at a state-designated hospital violated his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution

p. 2 / para. 2

ii.2. Whether the court should direct the transfer of the patient to a private hospital of his choice to ensure his constitutional right to health and autonomy

pp. 6 / para. 12-13

03Law Applied

The court primarily applied Article 21 (Right to Life and Personal Liberty) and Article 19 (Freedom of Speech and Expression/Movement) of the Constitution of India

p. 6

These provisions encompass the right to health and the right of a patient to receive medical treatment at a facility of their choice, particularly when state-imposed confinement is challenged as illegal

p. 2, 6

The court also relied on medical consensus regarding the necessity of "constant and continuous monitoring" by experts to safeguard the right to life

p. 5

04Reasoning

The Court facilitated a consensus between medical experts from AIIMS and the Appellant's private doctor to determine the severity of the patient's condition

pp. 4-5

Recognizing the clinical concerns (low TLC and potassium), the Court determined that the patient required specialized monitoring

p. 5

To balance the state’s duty to provide care with the individual's fundamental rights, the Court reasoned that allowing the husband to be shifted to his preferred facility (Medanta Hospital, Gurugram) would satisfy the constitutional requirements of Articles 19 and 21

p. 6

The Court noted that the Solicitor General offered no objection to this transfer, thereby removing the adversarial hurdle to the patient's autonomy

p. 6