A division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia was hearing an appeal filed by Wangchuk's wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, challenging a single judge's refusal to permit his transfer to a private hospital.

After examining the medical records and interacting with doctors from AIIMS, Safdarjung Hospital and Wangchuk's personal physicians, the Court observed:

"After going through reports and after interacting with AIIMS doctors and doctor who attended him, there is consensus that constant monitoring is required. As per Dr. Tandon, he has to be monitored in hospital. The concern expressed by Wangchuk in his letter is also to be taken into consideration. We propose that he be shifted to Medanta, hospital of his choice."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and Delhi Police along with Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, informed the Court that the government had no objection to Wangchuk being shifted to Medanta.

"I had interactions with the government also. Medanta is a reputed hospital. The government has no objection if Wangchuk is shifted there, but he may not get discharged against medical advice," Mehta submitted.

The Court indicated that Wangchuk would be shifted to Medanta and that all medical records and treatment details from Safdarjung Hospital would be shared with the private hospital.

"We propose to get him shifted to Medanta. He will be treated there. All treatment details and reports prepared at Safdarjung will be supplied to Medanta. We will pass orders after lunch," the Bench said.

The Court's proposal came after Wangchuk's counsel, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, relied on reports prepared by doctors who had been consulting him for years and submitted that there was no immediate threat to his life. Sibal argued that Wangchuk's condition did not warrant hospitalisation or intensive monitoring and that he had been monitored even while he was at the protest site.

However, doctors from AIIMS and Safdarjung Hospital expressed concern over certain medical parameters, including elevated uric acid levels, low white blood cell count and low haemoglobin.

One of the AIIMS doctors informed the Court that Wangchuk's blood cell count remained persistently low, making him susceptible to infections. Another doctor, Dr. Tandon, observed that Wangchuk's ability to fight infections had been significantly impaired and that his condition required continuous monitoring.

"I would have concerns about his ability to mount any infection. Platelets are also on the lower side. It needs investigation. He is not taking any calories. The rise in uric acid indicates muscle loss. Multiple things are expected when you are fasting, but that doesn't mean everything is normal. This requires continuous monitoring," Dr. Tandon told the Court.

During the hearing, Sibal also drew the Court's attention to a letter written by Wangchuk detailing his experience at Safdarjung Hospital, including complaints regarding police presence, restrictions on phone access and surveillance.

Wangchuk was taken from Jantar Mantar by Delhi Police on July 18, where he had been on a hunger strike in solidarity with the Cockroach Janta Party and students protesting the alleged NEET paper leak. He was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital after the same division bench, on July 16, directed the Centre to ensure daily clinical monitoring and provide medical treatment if required.

On Monday, the High Court had directed Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and Wangchuk's personal doctors to place all pathological reports and medical opinions on record before it considered his plea for transfer to a private hospital of his choice.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr Akhil Sibal, Sr. Adv; Ms Bahuli Sharma, Adv; Ms Susan Maria Mathew, Adv; Mr Yoshit Jain, Adv; Mr Suryaansh K. Razdan, Adv; Ms Ridhi Arora, Adv; Ms Jahnavi Sindhu, Adv; Petitioner In Person (Ms Gitanjali Angmo)

Counsel for Respondents: SGI Tushar Mehta; ASG Chetan Sharma; CGSC Ashish Dixit; Sameer Vashisht, Standing Counsel (Civil) GNCTD