The Delhi High Court on Monday (July 20, 2026) posted for hearing on Tuesday (July 21) an appeal filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, seeking his transfer from the government-run Safdarjung Hospital to a hospital of his choice.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said its immediate concern was to “save his life first” and sought clarity on Mr. Wangchuk’s current medical condition. The activist has been on a hunger strike for 22 days.
The Bench directed that all pathological reports based on blood samples analysed by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS, and a private laboratory be placed on record. It also asked the lead doctor treating Mr. Wangchuk at Safdarjung Hospital as well as the private physician consulted by the family to remain present at the next hearing.
Appearing for Ms. Angmo, senior advocate Akhil Sibal submitted that Mr. Wangchuk was “willing to be discharged against medical advice so that no blame falls on the treating doctors”.
“If he wishes, he will check into another hospital, if that situation is required. Today, he does not want to be restrained from leaving the premises. He is feeling fine, he is cogent, he is clear-headed. He is able to write representations in his own hand. That scenario of a life-threatening situation has not yet emerged. He is not in the ICU. If such a situation arises, he will take the necessary measures,” Mr. Sibal argued.
He contended that Mr. Wangchuk’s autonomy could not be curtailed without the sanction of law and emphasised that he had a constitutional right to continue his protest. Citing judicial precedents, Mr. Sibal argued that “hunger strikes are a recognised form of constitutionally protected protest” and one’s “bodily autonomy should not be taken away like this without sanction of law”.
Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the authorities, countered that while the right to protest is a fundamental right, it is not absolute when public interest and preservation of life are involved. “The life of everyone, including the petitioner’s husband, is precious and needs to be protected,” Mr. Mehta submitted.
Responding to allegations regarding discrepancies in medical reports, the Solicitor-General said blood samples had been examined by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and a private laboratory, and that “substantially, all the three reports came to be the same”.
Addressing the issue of bodily autonomy, Mr. Mehta argued that although an individual ordinarily has the right to accept or refuse medical treatment, the state’s interest becomes relevant when deterioration in a protester’s health could have wider consequences. “In normal circumstances, it is the bodily autonomy of any individual to take or not take treatment. But when the consequence of deterioration of health or a potential loss of life has an impact on the law and order situation, that is where the state interest comes in,” he submitted.
“We are dealing with the case of a person who has a right to protest, which is a fundamental right. But we are also dealing with a person whose deterioration in health or any unforeseen event could potentially have repercussions. Therefore, the right of bodily autonomy, like any other right, can never be absolute,” Mr. Mehta said.
The appeal challenges a single-judge order passed on Sunday (July 19) declining to direct Mr. Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram, where his family wishes him to be treated.
Published - July 20, 2026 11:19 am IST