The Delhi High Court on Sunday refused to grant interim relief to climate activist Sonam Wangchuk in a petition filed by his wife, Dr Gitanjali J Angmo, challenging his continued hospitalisation at Safdarjung Hospital and seeking his transfer to a private hospital of his choice.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the decision of the authorities to shift Wangchuk from the Jantar Mantar protest site to the government hospital on medical grounds could not be termed arbitrary or unconstitutional.
The Court observed that Wangchuk had not voluntarily admitted himself to any hospital despite his deteriorating health after an indefinite hunger strike. The government was justified in intervening to protect his life. Doctors at Safdarjung Hospital, along with specialists from AIIMS, were continuously monitoring his condition in accordance with established medical protocol, noted the Court.
Since Wangchuk had consented to the administration of oral sugar-free oral rehydration solution (ORS) and potassium chloride tablets, Justice Pushkarna held that there was no material to indicate that force had been used against him or that his right to bodily autonomy and informed consent had been violated.
The Court further recorded the Centre’s submission that Wangchuk’s wife, brother and brother-in-law had been granted unrestricted access to him throughout the day and had also been provided a separate room at the hospital. In view of these arrangements, it held that no interim direction was required at this stage.
However, the Bench issued notice to the Union government, Delhi Police and Safdarjung Hospital on the writ petition, directing them to file their replies and a status report on Wangchuk’s medical condition within three days. The Court also directed that his medical reports be shared with his family members and listed the matter for further hearing on July 24.
The writ petition alleged that Wangchuk was being illegally and unconstitutionally confined under the guise of medical treatment after being removed from the protest site on July 18 without his consent. It sought a declaration that his continued hospitalisation amounted to unlawful detention.
The plea further sought his immediate discharge from Safdarjung Hospital, permission to shift him to a private hospital of his and his family’s choice, unrestricted access to his lawyers and treating doctors, disclosure of complete medical records on a real-time basis, and a direction restraining the authorities from administering any treatment without his informed consent.
Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal, Vivek Tankha and Akhil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, argued that Wangchuk was neither under arrest nor facing any criminal proceedings and, therefore, could not be prevented from choosing his own hospital or medical practitioner. They submitted that Medanta Hospital had agreed to admit him and that the family had no objection if doctors from AIIMS or Safdarjung Hospital continued to participate in his treatment.
It was further contended that after his admission to Safdarjung Hospital, Wangchuk had been denied access to his lawyers and doctors who had monitored him during the hunger strike, while police personnel were allegedly stationed around his room. The petitioner also argued that the July 16 order of the Delhi High Court directing daily medical monitoring did not authorise his forcible removal from the protest site, confinement in hospital or compulsory medical treatment.
Appearing for the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma opposed the plea and submitted that Wangchuk’s health had significantly deteriorated after nearly three weeks of fasting in Delhi’s hot and humid weather, making immediate medical intervention necessary.
The ASG informed the Court that Wangchuk was admitted to the emergency department of Safdarjung Hospital and was under the joint supervision of doctors from Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS. He submitted that blood tests had been conducted at AIIMS, Safdarjung Hospital and private laboratories and there was no basis to question the integrity of the government medical team.
The Centre also argued that any adverse development in Wangchuk’s health would have serious consequences, requiring the authorities to act with greater caution. While maintaining that the treatment being provided at Safdarjung Hospital was adequate, the ASG stated that the government was even willing to shift Wangchuk to AIIMS if necessary, though not as a concession.
Dr Akshay, Additional Professor of Emergency Medicine at AIIMS, informed the Court that Wangchuk had started taking sugar-free ORS and potassium supplements orally with his consent but had declined intravenous fluids and vitamin supplementation.
The doctor stated that Wangchuk was dehydrated and that certain medical parameters, including potassium, sodium and blood sugar levels, were either borderline or below normal. He also informed the Court that the prolonged fast had resulted in ketosis and dehydration, making continued medical supervision essential.
The petition questioned the medical necessity of Wangchuk’s hospitalisation by referring to an alleged discrepancy in his potassium levels. It stated that a medical report dated July 17 had recorded his potassium level at 4.3 mmol/L, whereas Safdarjung Hospital later reported it at 2.9 mEq/L and recommended urgent intravenous treatment.
Angmo alleged that despite requesting a blood sample for independent testing, the hospital supplied it only after a delay of around 10 hours. According to the petition, a private laboratory subsequently recorded his potassium level at 3.6 mEq/L, which fell within the reference range, leading the family to question the claimed medical emergency and lose confidence in the treatment being provided.
The petitioner also alleged that only selective medical information had been shared with the family and that repeated written requests seeking Wangchuk’s discharge and transfer to another hospital had not been accepted.
Medical records placed before the Court showed that Wangchuk was conscious and had a stable pulse, blood pressure and oxygen saturation when admitted to Safdarjung Hospital. However, doctors recorded signs of dehydration, including mucosal dryness, decreased skin turgor and compensated metabolic acidosis.
His urinary ketone levels had reportedly increased from 1+ to 3+, indicating prolonged starvation, and the hospital warned that his condition could become life-threatening without appropriate medical intervention. The records further stated that Wangchuk had declined intravenous fluids, oral medication and certain other recommended treatment.
The case arises from Wangchuk’s indefinite hunger strike, which began on June 28 after he joined protests at Jantar Mantar in support of students alleging irregularities in competitive examinations, including the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG), and demanding reforms in the education system.
On July 16, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, while disposing of a public interest litigation concerning his deteriorating health, had recorded the Solicitor General’s assurance that government doctors would monitor his condition daily and undertake medical intervention whenever considered necessary.
Relying on that order, Delhi Police shifted Wangchuk to Safdarjung Hospital in the early hours of July 18. Angmo has challenged the legality of that action, contending that the earlier order permitted only medical monitoring and did not authorise his forcible removal, continued confinement or treatment without consent. The High Court will examine these issues after the respondents place their replies on record.
