Back
Refuses Sonam Wangchuk's Plea for Private Hospital, Upholds Government Action
In a dramatic emergency hearing on Sunday, the refused to direct the transfer of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from the government-run to a private medical facility of his choice, holding that the authorities’ decision to shift him from his hunger strike site was neither nor . Justice Mini Pushkarna, sitting singly, rejected the filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali J Angmo, who had challenged his continued confinement and sought his immediate discharge. The court underscored that the government was within its rights to intervene after Wangchuk, who had been on an indefinite fast since in support of anti-NEET protests, did not voluntarily admit himself for medical care despite deteriorating health.
The Protest, the Fast, and the Forcible Removal
Wangchuk had joined the student-led agitation at Jantar Mantar, demanding accountability for alleged irregularities in the National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET-UG) and calling for the resignation of the Union Education Minister. After nearly three weeks of fasting, a of the High Court on , while disposing of a , recorded the Solicitor General’s assurance that government doctors would monitor his health and undertake medical intervention if needed. Acting on that order, shifted Wangchuk to in the early hours of
His wife immediately moved the court, arguing that the order did not authorise forcible removal or , and that Wangchuk was neither an accused nor under any form of . The petition sought a declaration that his continued stay at was and prayed for permission to shift him to , where the family had already secured a bed.
A Special Sunday Hearing Intensifies the Legal Battle
The courtroom witnessed a tense exchange as Senior Advocate , appearing for Angmo, contended that a free citizen has the right to choose his own hospital and that the state cannot compel treatment under the guise of medical necessity. “I want to be in an environment where I want to be, where my family, friends and lawyers can visit me,” Sibal submitted, stressing that the police presence in Wangchuk’s room had even caused a spike in his blood pressure.
Additional Solicitor General , representing the Union, countered that the circumstances were extraordinary and that the government had to act with extra caution. He argued that any adverse development in Wangchuk’s health could have serious consequences, and that the integrity of government doctors should not be questioned. In a notable assurance, Sharma said the Centre was even willing to shift Wangchuk to the if the family so desired, though he stopped short of conceding the prayer for a private hospital.
The Core Legal Question: Autonomy vs. State’s Duty to Protect Life
Central to the dispute was the tension between an adult’s right to and , and the state’s obligation to preserve life. Justice Pushkarna, after interacting with Dr Akshay Kumar, Additional Professor of Emergency Medicine at AIIMS, noted that Wangchuk had been administered only oral rehydration solution (ORS) without sugar and potassium chloride tablets with his consent. He had refused intravenous fluids, and no force had been used.
“Considering the fact that Mr. Sonam Wangchuk on his own volition did not check himself into any hospital facility, the Government was within its rights to take such action,” the judge observed. She further recorded that “it cannot be said that any force is being used or his is being violated in any manner.” The court took into account the earlier ’s direction, which had emphasised that “every life is precious,” and concluded that the government’s intervention was a legitimate response to Wangchuk’s “deteriorating health situation.”
Disputed Potassium Levels and the Trust Deficit
A significant sub-plot in the petition was the alleged discrepancy in Wangchuk’s potassium levels. Angmo claimed that a medical report dated recorded his potassium at 4.3 mmol/L, well within the normal range. Yet after admission to , doctors informed the family that it had fallen to 2.9 mmol/L, warranting urgent intravenous treatment. When the hospital provided a blood sample after a 10‑hour delay, a private lab found the level to be 3.6 mmol/L—still within reference range. The petition alleged conduct, suggesting that the medical emergency was manufactured to justify Wangchuk’s removal from the protest site.
Dr Kavita, Medical Superintendent of , told the bench that from the outset Wangchuk had not expressed confidence in the hospital, which hampered effective care. The court did not delve deep into the potassium controversy but directed that all medical reports be shared with the family in real time, implicitly acknowledging the transparency deficit.
Surveillance Concerns and Family Access
Angmo also alleged that police personnel were stationed outside Wangchuk’s room, eavesdropping on conversations, and that she was barred from carrying her phone inside. While the ASG disputed the presence of constables inside the room, the court chose not to make any observation on the surveillance complaint. It did, however, record the government’s submission that Angmo, Wangchuk’s brother, and brother-in-law had been given round-the-clock access and a separate room—described by the judge as “unprecedented” considering normal visitation norms for other patients.
Justice Pushkarna issued notice to the Centre, , and , directing them to file replies within three days. The matter has been listed for further hearing on . Until then, Wangchuk remains at Safdarjung, and the court has clarified that “the ultimate decision on any medical condition will be monitored by the medical team which shall decide as per medical protocol.”
Legal Implications: Defining the Contours of State Intervention
The case raises profound questions about the limits of state paternalism in the face of peaceful protest. While the High Court’s interim refusal may appear to prioritise a paternalistic view of health over individual liberty, the bench carefully anchored its reasoning in the specific facts—Wangchuk had not availed medical care voluntarily, his health was visibly declining, and the treatment given had his consent. The judgment, at this , leaves open the larger debate on whether a fully competent adult can be hospitalised against his will merely because his fast is politically inconvenient to the establishment.
For legal practitioners, the matter will be watched closely for its eventual pronouncement on the scope of . The court’s observation that “no force has been used” suggests a narrow interpretation of —one that focuses on physical coercion rather than the absence of free, informed choice in a situation of police surveillance. The final hearing may also test the validity of the earlier order, which was passed without notice to Wangchuk or his wife, as a basis for preemptive medical action.
Beyond the legal technicalities, the episode underscores the judicial system’s delicate balancing act: safeguarding an individual’s right to protest and refuse treatment, while ensuring that the state does not stand by as a life ebbs away in the heat of a hunger strike. For now, Wangchuk’s courtroom battle for remains adjourned, but the constitutional questions it has stirred are far from settled.
