LegalRights – Delhi High Court to Hear Sonam Wangchuk Hospital Transfer Appeal Today
LegalRights – The Delhi High Court is set to examine an urgent appeal filed on behalf of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging a recent order that declined his request to move from Safdarjung Hospital to a private medical facility of his choice. The appeal has been filed by his wife, Dr Gitanjali J Angmo, who argues that the earlier decision restricts Wangchuk’s right to decide where and how he receives medical treatment.
High Court Agrees to Urgent Hearing
A Division Bench led by Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia agreed on Monday to hear the appeal at 2:30 PM after Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal sought an urgent listing. During the mentioning of the matter, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Government, requested that the hearing be scheduled for the following day. However, after considering submissions from both sides, the Bench decided to take up the appeal later the same day.
The appeal comes a day after Justice Mini Pushkarna declined to grant interim relief permitting Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a private healthcare institution.
Appeal Raises Questions Over Patient Autonomy
According to the appeal, the earlier order overlooks key constitutional protections relating to personal liberty, bodily autonomy and informed consent. Dr Angmo argues that the decision effectively places the authority over Wangchuk’s medical care entirely in the hands of the treating doctors, leaving neither him nor his family with the freedom to choose his preferred hospital or medical team.
The plea further states that a mentally competent patient has the legal right to accept, refuse or discontinue medical treatment after receiving proper information. It claims that this established legal principle was not adequately considered while deciding the request for interim relief.
Constitutional Rights Form Central Argument
The appeal also maintains that although the Single Judge observed that Wangchuk is neither under arrest nor in detention, his continued stay at Safdarjung Hospital amounts to an unlawful restriction on his freedom. It argues that keeping him in the hospital without legal authority interferes with rights protected under Article 21 of the Constitution, particularly where medical treatment may proceed without his voluntary consent.
To support these arguments, the petition relies on previous Supreme Court rulings, including the judgments in Common Cause v. Union of India and Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda. These decisions recognise that competent patients are entitled to make informed choices regarding their healthcare, except in narrowly defined emergency situations.
Hunger Strike and Right to Protest
Another important issue raised in the appeal concerns Wangchuk’s ongoing hunger strike at Jantar Mantar. The petition argues that shifting him to the hospital has prevented him from continuing his peaceful protest, thereby affecting rights guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Ramlila Maidan Incident case, the appeal submits that a hunger strike is a constitutionally recognised form of peaceful protest. It contends that such a demonstration cannot be interrupted through forced hospitalisation unless there is lawful authority supporting such action.
Family Questions Circumstances of Hospital Shift
The petition further states that Wangchuk and his wife were not consulted before he was moved to Safdarjung Hospital. It claims they were given no opportunity to choose either the hospital or the doctors responsible for his treatment. The appeal also argues there is no material demonstrating that his condition had deteriorated to a level requiring compulsory relocation.
According to the plea, if the authorities believed urgent medical intervention had become necessary, they should have first approached the court before shifting him from the protest site.
Earlier Court Order and Medical Findings
In its July 19 order, Justice Mini Pushkarna concluded that there was no immediate violation of Wangchuk’s personal liberty, observing that government authorities had transferred him to the hospital to safeguard his health after his medical condition worsened during a fast lasting nearly 18 days.
The court referred to earlier directions issued on July 16 requiring regular medical monitoring. Medical reports presented by doctors from Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS indicated that Wangchuk’s blood sugar and sodium levels were below normal, while potassium levels posed a serious health risk. The court also recorded that intravenous treatment had not been administered because Wangchuk had not agreed to it.
The Single Judge further noted that doctors were providing only medicines and oral electrolytes to which Wangchuk had consented. Finding no evidence of forced treatment, the court directed the Centre to share his medical reports with his family, seek a status report from the government and scheduled the main petition for further hearing on July 24, 2026.