The Delhi High Court sought a comprehensive medical report on activist Sonam Wangchuk’s health after allegations of his forced confinement, directing Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and a private laboratory to file all pathological reports through sworn affidavits.
The Delhi High Court called for a comprehensive medical report on the health of climate and education activist Sonam Wangchuk, after his wife Gitanjali Angmo approached the Court alleging that he was being forcibly held at Safdarjung Hospital by the Delhi Police to keep him away from the ongoing protests in the national capital
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Director of Safdarjung Hospital to place on record, by way of affidavit, the complete pathological findings on Wangchuk, based on samples examined at three facilities Safdarjung Hospital, the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and a private laboratory.
The Court directed,
“We direct that having regard to overall circumstances and submissions, we direct that all the pathological reports based on the sample analysed at Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS, and private lab shall be filed in an affidavit and sworn by director of hospital,”
The Bench also asked Angmo to place on record the medical reports she had relied upon, and directed that the treating and consulting doctors be present in court the following day to assist the proceedings.
The Court said,
“We request that the incharge of AIIMS and other consulting and treating doctors are required to be present for assistance,”
The Division Bench was hearing an appeal by Angmo challenging a single judge’s refusal to order Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Delhi Police and the Central government, submitted that the State had a legitimate interest in ensuring that Wangchuk’s health and life were not compromised, since any deterioration could have a bearing on the law and order situation.
The SG submitted,
“When the consequence of your deterioration of death of health or a potential loss of life has an impact on the law and order situation, that is where the State’s interest come in,”
Drawing a distinction from cases of euthanasia, Mehta contended that while the right to protest was available to every citizen, it did not extend to a right to fast unto death until a demand was conceded.
The SG stated,
“We are not dealing with a case of euthanasia. We are dealing with a person who has a right to protest but the person exercising his right to protest, suppose tomorrow someone was to say that unless and until my demand is met, I will commit suicide, then public interest comes,”
He maintained that where a person on a protest site reaches a critical stage, it becomes the duty of the State to intervene and prevent further deterioration.
Mehta added that after Wangchuk expressed discomfort with the treating team, a doctor from AIIMS had been stationed at Safdarjung Hospital on a permanent basis, and that the patient remained under close observation while his family was yet to take a decision on the recommended intervention.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, argued that Wangchuk had been taken to the hospital without any prior consultation with him or his family, and that his medical reports had not been shared with them.
“Without any consultation with the family, with Mr. Wangchuk, without any prior intimation, on 18th of morning, that is Saturday, without sharing any reports that the government possesses, my husband was forcibly taken to Safdarjung hospital,” he submitted.
Sibal stressed that Wangchuk was neither in intensive care nor on any life support, and remained fully conscious and capable of communicating.
He argued,
“He is not in ICU, he is not on any kind of support. He is cogent. He is conscious. He himself is writing letters,”
Reading out a medical report which, he said, showed stable vitals and only moderate dehydration, Sibal contended that a conscious and competent adult who was not in a life-threatening condition could not be compelled to remain in a particular hospital against his wishes.
He asked,
“A person, who is conscious, able to give consent to take a call on that and to have that advice given by the doctors of his choice in a hospital of his choice in consultation with the family, then is such a thing justified? If a person is not in a position to give consent, then they can. But when a person is conscious, cogent, articulate, able to write by his own hand, not yet in life-threatening situation, then is such a thing justified?”
He submitted that Wangchuk had himself requested discharge and was willing to leave against medical advice so that no blame attached to the treating doctors.
Sibal contended,
“Today he has written and requested for discharge. We said let us go where we are comfortable. We have already spoken to Medanta. I cant be forced to stay there. It is a matter of his choice, he is willing to be discharged against medical advice so that no blame falls on the doctors. The scenario of life-threatening circumstance has not emerged, we are not there yet,”
He further argued that a hunger strike is a constitutionally recognised form of protest, and that Wangchuk’s autonomy could not be taken away without the sanction of law.
He stated,
“He has a right to protest. Hunger strikes are a recognised form of constitutionally permissible protest. My autonomy should not be taken away by like this without sanction of law,”
Declining to enter into the merits of the clinical assessment, the Chief Justice observed that the Court could not sit in judgment over expert medical opinion.
The Chief Justice remarked,
“Should a doctor wait to administer drug until taken to ICU? Only then drug will be administered? Any report, any test they conducted ought to have been shared with you, we cannot make comments on expert’s opinion,”
According to the appeal, the single judge’s order effectively strips Wangchuk of the right to determine the course of his own treatment by placing final authority with the attending medical team, thereby overriding the choices of a conscious and competent adult and violating his bodily autonomy.
The plea asserts that the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution includes the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment and to choose the hospital where such treatment is received. Wangchuk’s continued hospitalisation at Safdarjung without his consent, it argues, infringes his personal liberty, bodily autonomy and right to protest.
The appeal also points out that neither Wangchuk nor Angmo was a party to the earlier proceedings in which the Court had permitted medical monitoring, and that the July 16 order authorised only monitoring not his forcible removal from the protest site or his continued confinement at a government hospital.
Background: a hunger strike since June 28
Wangchuk began an indefinite hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar on June 28, in solidarity with the youth-led “Cockroach Janta Party” movement, pressing for accountability over repeated examination paper leaks and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
Two days before Wangchuk was shifted, a Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia, hearing a PIL filed by Rakesh Kumar Saini , directed the Central and Delhi governments to ensure that his health was monitored daily by government doctors and that all necessary intervention be provided if his condition worsened.
Recording the Solicitor General’s assurance, the Court observed that “life of any citizen is precious and all efforts ought to be made by the government authorities to save the same”, and disposed of the petition.
Citing concerns over his deteriorating condition, the Delhi Police removed Wangchuk from the Jantar Mantar protest site and admitted him to Safdarjung Hospital.
Angmo then moved the High Court seeking his transfer to a private hospital, alleging a loss of faith in Safdarjung over the lack of transparency on his treatment and reports, and describing his continued stay as amounting to illegal detention.
A single judge, Justice Mini Pushkarna, prima facie found that the government’s decision to shift him from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung was not arbitrary, noting that he was being closely monitored and had consented to the administration of oral fluids and electrolytes.
Holding that no interim direction was warranted at that stage, the Court issued notice to the Union government, Delhi Police and Safdarjung Hospital, directed that his medical reports be shared with his family, and listed the writ petition for July 24.
Angmo’s present appeal challenges that order.
After calling for the medical reports and directing the doctors to appear, the Division Bench posted the matter for further consideration on Tuesday, July 21.