Sonam Wangchuk to remain at Safdarjung Hospital: Delhi HC backs govt decision, declines interim relief

The Delhi High Court on Sunday declined to grant interim relief to activist Sonam Wangchuk, holding that the government's decision to shift him to Safdarjung Hospital after his prolonged hunger strike was justified and not arbitrary. In an important observation, the court said the State was within its rights to intervene after Wangchuk did not voluntarily seek medical care despite his deteriorating health.

Justice Mini Pushkarna was hearing a petition filed by Wangchuk's wife, Geetanjali Angmo, challenging what she described as his "illegal confinement" at the Safdarjung Hospital and seeking permission to shift him to a private hospital of his choice.

Rejecting the plea for immediate relief, the court observed that the authorities had acted on medical advice after Wangchuk's condition worsened. The bench held that once a person's health reaches a critical stage, the State cannot remain a passive spectator if medical experts advise intervention.

The court specifically observed that the government was within its rights to shift Wangchuk to a hospital as he had not voluntarily sought medical treatment despite concerns over his health. It further clarified that the ultimate decision regarding his medical condition would rest with the treating doctors.

"The ultimate decision with regard to any medical condition would be monitored by the medical team, which shall take a decision as per the medical protocol," the court observed.

The Centre defended its decision by placing Wangchuk's medical records before the court. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma submitted that Wangchuk had developed dehydration and ketosis after remaining on an indefinite fast for nearly three weeks. According to the government, doctors advised immediate hospitalisation, following which he was shifted from the protest site to Safdarjung Hospital. The Centre also relied on the High Court's earlier directions, permitting authorities to step in if his medical condition deteriorated.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk, argued that the issue was not whether medical treatment was necessary, but whether the State could compel a person to remain in a government hospital against his wishes.

He submitted that Wangchuk had a constitutional right under Article 21 to choose his treating doctors and hospital, contending that his continued confinement at the Safdarjung Hospital violated his personal liberty.

The court, however, appeared unconvinced at the interim stage. It noted that Wangchuk had not voluntarily sought medical care and that authorities intervened only after doctors assessed that his condition required urgent medical attention.

The bench also took note of reports from AIIMS doctors stating that Wangchuk remained dehydrated and in ketosis while refusing certain forms of medical intervention, including intravenous treatment and nutritional supplements.

While declining interim relief, the High Court issued a notice on the main petition and directed the Centre and the Delhi government to file status reports. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 24.