The Delhi High Court on Monday agreed to urgently hear an intra-court appeal filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging the July 19 order of a single-judge Bench that refused to direct his discharge from Safdarjung Hospital and transfer to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram.
The appeal was mentioned for urgent listing by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal before a Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, which agreed to hear the matter at 2:30 pm.
Appearing for the appellant, Sibal submitted that Wangchuk was forcibly removed from the Jantar Mantar protest site by the Delhi Police on July 18 without prior intimation and shifted to Safdarjung Hospital. He argued that Wangchuk was neither under arrest nor detention and, therefore, was entitled to receive medical treatment at a hospital of his choice.
Sibal contended that the appeal merely sought his transfer to Medanta Hospital and that the State could not curtail the bodily autonomy of a conscious and competent adult.
The petitioner sought to set aside the July 19 verdict delivered by the single-judge Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna on the grounds that it violated Wangchuk’s fundamental rights to personal liberty, bodily autonomy and informed consent guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Wangchuk has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since June 28 in solidarity with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) movement, which is demanding accountability for alleged irregularities and repeated paper leaks in competitive examinations, including NEET, and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
On July 18, Delhi Police shifted him from the protest site to Safdarjung Hospital after his health reportedly deteriorated following the prolonged fast. The transfer followed a July 16 order of a Division Bench of the High Court directing the authorities to monitor his health daily and undertake such medical intervention as may be necessary in view of his deteriorating condition.
On July 19, Angmo moved the High Court seeking directions to transfer Wangchuk to a private hospital, alleging that her family had lost confidence in the treatment being provided at Safdarjung Hospital because of an alleged lack of transparency regarding his medical condition, treatment protocol and diagnostic reports.
She further claimed that Wangchuk was being kept in the hospital under circumstances amounting to illegal and unconstitutional confinement despite there being no FIR, arrest order or preventive detention order against him.
Refusing interim relief, Justice Pushkarna prima facie held on Sunday that the government’s decision to shift Wangchuk from the protest site to Safdarjung Hospital could not be termed arbitrary. The Court observed that Wangchuk had not voluntarily admitted himself to any hospital despite his deteriorating health and that the authorities were justified in intervening to protect his life.
It further noted that he was being monitored by doctors from Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS in accordance with established medical protocol, had consented to receiving oral sugar-free oral rehydration solution (ORS) and potassium supplements, and that there was no material to indicate any violation of his bodily autonomy.
Justice Pushkarna further observed that the treating medical team would take the ultimate decision regarding the assessment and management of his condition in accordance with accepted medical standards and clinical protocol.
Sibal contended before the Division Bench that the single-judge Bench’s directions effectively deprived Wangchuk, a conscious and competent adult, of his constitutional right to determine the course of his medical treatment by vesting the ultimate decision-making authority in the treating doctors.
According to the appeal, the impugned order permitted medical professionals to override the wishes of a competent patient, contrary to the principles of bodily autonomy, informed consent and self-determination, which formed an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The appeal further asserted that every competent adult had the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment and choose the hospital and medical practitioner from whom such treatment was received. It argued that Wangchuk’s continued hospitalisation without his free consent amounted to an unlawful restriction on his personal liberty, bodily integrity and right to continue his peaceful protest.
It also submitted that the July 16 Division Bench order authorised only medical monitoring and necessary healthcare intervention and did not empower the authorities to forcibly remove Wangchuk from the protest site or continue his confinement in a government hospital.
The appeal pointed out that neither Wangchuk nor Angmo was a party to those proceedings and, therefore, no coercive action affecting their legal rights could have been founded on that order.
The appellant also questioned the medical basis for Wangchuk’s continued hospitalisation by disputing the potassium levels recorded by Safdarjung Hospital. As per Angmo, the hospital reported that his potassium level had fallen to 2.9 mEq/L, necessitating urgent medical intervention. She placed reliance on independent laboratory reports, which allegedly recorded potassium levels of 3.6 mEq/L and 3.76 mEq/L, both within the normal reference range.
She contended that the medical emergency projected by the authorities was not supported by subsequent diagnostic findings. Angmo further pointed out that Justice Pushkarna had also taken note of medical submissions indicating that Wangchuk’s blood sugar and sodium levels were below the normal range and that his potassium level had been reported to be dangerously low by the treating doctors.
The appellant sought the setting aside and stay on the impugned order, permission to transfer Wangchuk to a hospital of his and his family’s choice, complete disclosure of his medical records, unrestricted access for his lawyers and private doctors, and a direction restraining the authorities from administering any medicine, intravenous fluids or any other medical intervention without his free and informed consent.
The post Delhi High Court to hear Gitanjali Angmo plea challenging refusal of hospital transfer to Sonam Wangchuk appeared first on India Legal.