The Delhi High Court on Tuesday proposed transferring activist Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital in the national capital to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram, following a legal challenge against his ongoing medical confinement.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia put forward the proposal while hearing an appeal filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo. The court indicated that a formal order on the matter would be passed during its post-lunch session.
During the proceedings, the court consulted with physicians from the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) currently supervising Wangchuk at Safdarjung Hospital, alongside the activist’s personal doctor. The bench noted a consensus among the medical professionals that his health requires continuous monitoring.
Representing the central government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta stated that authorities held no objection to moving Wangchuk to Medanta Hospital, noting its reputation. However, the senior law officer insisted that the activist must not request a discharge against medical advice following the transfer.
Legal Challenge To Hospital Confinement
The appeal contests a Sunday decision by a single-judge bench that declined to intervene in Wangchuk’s treatment at Safdarjung Hospital. In her petition, Angmo argues that the earlier ruling effectively allows her husband to be unlawfully confined without a formal arrest while depriving both the activist and his family of decision-making authority over his healthcare.
Protest Background And Police Intervention
Wangchuk has been on an indefinite hunger strike since June 28 in protest against alleged examination irregularities. On the 21st day of his fast, Delhi Police removed him from the Jantar Mantar protest site and forcibly admitted him to Safdarjung Hospital.
Angmo sought an urgent court intervention the following day. During a special Sunday hearing, Justice Mini Pushkarna held that the administration’s decision to shift the fasting activist to a public hospital was not arbitrary, leading to the current appeal before the division bench.
