The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to hear an appeal filed by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali J Angmo, challenging a Single Judge’s refusal to direct his transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia agreed to take up the matter at 2:30 PM after it was mentioned for urgent hearing by Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the appellant.
When the matter was mentioned, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union of India, requested that the appeal be taken up tomorrow. However, after hearing the request from both sides, the Bench agreed to hear the matter at 2:30 PM today.
The appeal was filed a day after Justice Mini Pushkarna declined to grant interim relief directing Sonam Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a private medical facility.
In the appeal, Dr. Angmo contends that the Single Judge’s order violates Wangchuk’s fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, informed consent and personal liberty. It argues that the impugned order effectively deprives Wangchuk and his wife of the authority to decide his medical treatment by leaving the ultimate decision to the medical team at Safdarjung Hospital.
The appeal submits that the Single Judge failed to consider the principle of informed consent and the settled legal position that a competent patient has the right to accept, refuse or discontinue medical treatment.
It further contends that although the Single Judge recorded that Wangchuk is neither under arrest nor under detention, the order effectively confines him to Safdarjung Hospital without any legal authority. The plea alleges that the order permits medical intervention without his consent, violating his bodily autonomy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgments in Common Cause v. Union of India and Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, the appeal argues that every competent patient has the right to make informed decisions regarding medical treatment and that treatment without free and informed consent is impermissible except in limited emergency situations.
The appeal also contends that Wangchuk’s continued confinement at Safdarjung Hospital infringes his rights under Articles 19 and 21 by preventing him from continuing his peaceful hunger strike and protest at Jantar Mantar. Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in the Ramlila Maidan Incident case, it submits that a hunger strike is a constitutionally recognised form of protest and cannot be curtailed by forcibly confining a protester in a hospital in the absence of any lawful detention.
It also argues that Wangchuk was never consulted before being shifted to Safdarjung Hospital and that neither he nor his wife was given an opportunity to choose the hospital or the doctors treating him. According to the appeal, there is no evidence showing any deterioration in his health warranting such coercive action. It further submits that if the authorities believed immediate medical intervention was necessary, they ought to have sought the Court’s permission before removing him from the protest site.
The appeal seeks the setting aside of the July 19 order and directions permitting Wangchuk to be shifted to a private hospital of his choice while protecting his rights relating to medical treatment and personal liberty.
On July 19, Justice Mini Pushkarna declined to grant interim relief directing Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital, holding that there was no prima facie violation of his personal liberty as the government’s decision to shift him from the protest site was taken to protect his life in view of his deteriorating medical condition.
The Court noted that Wangchuk had been on a prolonged fast for nearly 17-18 days and referred to the Division Bench’s July 16 order directing daily medical monitoring and necessary medical intervention to prevent further deterioration. It held that the government shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital in compliance with those directions after his condition became precarious.
After considering submissions from the Union Government and doctors from Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS, the Court observed that Wangchuk’s blood sugar and sodium levels were below normal and that his potassium levels posed a risk of life-threatening complications. It also noted the government’s submission that intravenous fluids had not been administered because Wangchuk had not consented to such treatment.
The Single Judge further held that doctors were administering only those medicines and oral electrolytes for which Wangchuk had consented and found no material to conclude that force was being used against him or that his bodily autonomy was being violated.
Recording the Centre’s assurance that Wangchuk’s medical reports would be shared with his family, the Court directed the Union Government to file a status report and listed the writ petition for further hearing on July 24, 2026.
