Delhi High Court Refuses To Transfer Former PFI Chairman Abubacker E. To Private Hospital For Treatment; Allows Physical Evaluation For Second Opinion

However, the Bench directed the Jail Authorities to produce the Petitioner at Apollo Hospital for a physical examination by the Endocrinology and Neurology Departments to facilitate a meaningful second medical opinion, which specialists had previously stated was impossible based on records alone. The Court clarified that this examination is for the limited purpose of obtaining said opinion, and the petitioner’s actual treatment shall continue at AIIMS.

The Bench of Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma observed, “In the present petition, the petitioner has again sought permission to be treated at a private hospital of his choice. However, in view of the earlier orders passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court directing his treatment at AIIMS, as well as the order of the learned Predecessor Bench permitting only a second opinion to aid treatment at AIIMS, this Court finds no merit in the said prayer. This is all the more so in the absence of any material on record to show any deficiency or inadequacy in the medical treatment being provided to the petitioner.”

Advocate Satyakam appeared for the Petitioner, while Special Public Prosecutor Rahul Tyagi appeared for the Respondents.

Facts of the Case

A writ petition was filed seeking the issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to shift Abubacker, at his own cost, from jail to a well- equipped multi-specialty private hospital such as Indraprastha Apollo or any other private hospital of his choice for further treatment; to permit one family member to remain with him as an attendant in view of his stated inability to attend to his daily needs on his own; and to ensure that the Delhi Armed Police (DAP) does not interfere in the course of his medical treatment.

He suffered from several serious medical conditions, including Type-II Diabetes, Parkinson’s disease, coronary artery disease, and was a post-operative case of carcinoma (cancer) of the oesophagus. In early March 2026, he complained of chest pain and breathlessness, leading to his treatment at various government hospitals like AIIMS and Safdarjung Hospital.

The Supreme Court in January 2025 had also refused to grant medical bail to Abubacker E., citing no critical findings in his AIIMS medical report. Pertinently, the Court had adjourned the medical bail petition, directing the Registry to provide the petitioner with a copy of the medical report submitted in the case. On November 12, 2024, the Apex Court had sought a medical report from AIIMS, examining him as an inpatient.

Earlier, on May 28, 2024, the Delhi High Court had also denied bail to the PFI leader.

However, a previous court order allowed his family to obtain a second medical opinion based on his records. Doctors at Apollo and Fortis hospitals later stated that they could not give a meaningful second opinion without a physical examination of the patient. Consequently, the petitioner filed this writ petition seeking a transfer to Indraprastha Apollo Hospital for treatment at his own cost.

Contention of Parties

The Petitioner argued that the treatment and environment at AIIMS were "disastrous" and that the medical staff acted in a non-cordial and humiliating manner. It was submitted that the doctors suspected the petitioner was feigning illness, and he was made to wait for long hours despite his frail condition. It was further contended that a second medical opinion from a private hospital was necessary but impossible to obtain without the petitioner being physically present for an examination.

The Respondent (NIA) opposed the petition, stating that it was misconceived. It was argued that the petitioner was already receiving the best possible care at premier government institutions like AIIMS and Safdarjung Hospital. He further submitted that mere allegations of "non-cordial" behavior by doctors did not justify a transfer to a private hospital, especially since the Trial Court had already dismissed a similar request earlier.

Observations of the Court

The High Court observed that AIIMS is a premier medical institute in India and was fully equipped to handle the petitioner's various ailments. The Court noted that there was no evidence of medical negligence or deficiency in the treatment provided by the government hospitals. It further observed that the petitioner's primary grievance was related to the "behavioral response" of the doctors rather than the actual medical line of treatment.

“This Court finds itself in agreement with the aforesaid view, particularly inasmuch as it is not even the case of the petitioner that he has been denied proper or adequate medical treatment. AIIMS, being a premier medical institution of the country, is well-equipped to address his medical needs. As regards the petitioner’s grievance that the behaviour of certain medical personnel was not cordial, this Court is of the opinion that such a ground, in the absence of any material indicating deficiency in medical care, cannot justify a direction for shifting the petitioner to a private hospital”, it said.

However, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner suffered from serious health issues and was entitled to a proper medical evaluation. Since private specialists had refused to give an opinion based solely on records, the Court held that a physical examination for a second opinion was necessary in the interest of justice.

The Court ordered, “In these circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that even though the petitioner is an accused, he is suffering from multiple serious medical ailments and is entitled to appropriate medical evaluation. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, it is directed that the petitioner be produced, on one specified date, in the next week, before the concerned doctors of the Endocrinology and Neurology Departments at Apollo Hospital for the limited purpose of obtaining a second medical opinion. After such examination, a copy of the medical report shall be handed over to the Jail Authorities as well as to the family of the petitioner. The petitioner’s son, namely Thalal Hasoon, shall be permitted to remain present with him during such medical examination.”

Consequently, the Court directed the Jail Authorities to produce the petitioner at Apollo Hospital for a one-day physical examination by the Endocrinology and Neurology departments.

The Court clarified that while a second opinion could be obtained, the petitioner’s actual treatment would continue at AIIMS only.

Accordingly, the Petition was disposed of.

Cause Title: Abubacker E v. National Investigation Agency And Anr. [Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:2623]

Appearances:

Petitioner: Advocate Satyakam, Advocate Rehan Ghalib Khan, Advocate Abdul Shukoor, Advocate Shereef K.A., Advocate Mohd. Arif Hussain.

Respondents: Special Public Prosecutor (NIA) Rahul Tyagi, Additional Special Public Prosecutor Jatin Khatri, Advocate Vikas Walia, Advocate Amit Rohila.

Click here to read/download the Judgment