The Delhi High Court on Sunday (July 19, 2026) declined to grant interim relief on a petition filed by Ms. Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, seeking his transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a hospital of his choice.
Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the decision to shift Mr. Wangchuk from the site of his hunger strike to Safdarjung Hospital was taken in view of his deteriorating medical condition and could not be termed “arbitrary”.
Read live updates from the ongoing protest at Jantar Mantar on July 19, 2026
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that Mr. Wangchuk, who was shifted to Safdarjung Hospital on July 18, was neither under detention nor accused of any offence and was therefore entitled to be treated by doctors and at a hospital of his choice. He submitted that the family wished to shift him to Medanta Hospital, alleging that his own doctors had no access to him.
Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, appearing for the Centre, relied on the High Court’s July 16 order directing that necessary medical intervention be undertaken in view of Mr. Wangchuk’s deteriorating health. He submitted that the decision to shift him to Safdarjung Hospital was taken after his condition became “perilous” following nearly 18 days of fasting.
The ASG informed the Court that Mr. Wangchuk’s potassium level had fallen to 2.8, which required close medical supervision. He submitted that medicines had been administered with Mr. Wangchuk’s consent, while IV fluids had not been given as he had declined the procedure. He also stated that doctors from AIIMS and Safdarjung Hospital were monitoring Mr. Wangchuk round the clock and that his wife and close family members had been given unrestricted access to him.
Dr. Akshay, Additional Professor in the Department of Emergency Medicine at AIIMS, who was present in court, said Mr. Wangchuk had begun taking oral fluids, oral potassium chloride and oral rehydration solution (ORS). However, IV fluids could not be administered as he had not consented to them.
Mr. Sibal argued that the State could not compel Mr. Wangchuk to remain at a government hospital. Referring to an earlier hunger strike undertaken by Mr. Wangchuk in Ladakh, he submitted that no such intervention had taken place then and that the family had lost confidence in the present course of treatment.
Mr. Wangchuk’s wife also addressed the Court, alleging that there had been a delay in informing the family about his declining potassium levels. She said the family wished to shift him to Medanta Hospital, which had agreed to provide an ambulance for the transfer.
After hearing the parties, the Court observed that Mr. Wangchuk’s potassium levels were at a dangerous level and that the medical records showed he was receiving treatment with his consent. It noted that IV fluids had not been administered because he had refused consent.
The Court further held that, “since the government has taken decision to shift Mr Wangchuk, on account of his deteriorating medical condition, this court does not find it to be an arbitrary action.”
It also noted that “since doctors at Safdarjung Hospital are closely monitoring Mr Wangchuk, it cannot be said that any force is being used against Mr Wangchuk or that his bodily autonomy is being violated in any manner.”
Observing that Mr. Wangchuk had chosen not to admit himself to a medical facility despite his deteriorating health, the Court held that the authorities were justified in shifting him to Safdarjung Hospital. It also took note of the separate room provided to him and the unrestricted access granted to his family members including wife, brother-in-law and brother.
“Ultimate decision with regard to his medical condition would be monitored by the hospital’s medical team, which shall take decision as per the medical protocol,” the court added.
Published - July 19, 2026 11:08 am IST