The Delhi High Court permitted climate activist Sonam Wangchuk to shift to Medanta Hospital during his indefinite hunger strike, directing immediate transfer of his medical records and treatment under a Medanta-appointed panel of doctors chosen by the hospital.
The Delhi High Court on permitted climate activist Sonam Wangchuk who has been on an indefinite hunger strike in solidarity with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) student agitation to be shifted to a hospital of his own choosing, bringing an apparent close to a days-long standoff over where, and by whom, he would be treated.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia indicated that it would allow the transfer to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram, subject to arrangements for his continued medical supervision, and said a formal order would follow after the lunch recess.
Setting out what it intended to direct, the Bench observed,
“What we propose to do is get him shifted to the hospital of his choice, that is Medanta. He will be treated by the Medanta doctor. All the treatment details at Safdarjung Hospital will be supplied to Medanta immediately and he will be treated there. A panel of doctors to be formed by the director Medanta.”
The direction came after the Court examined the medical records placed before it and questioned the doctors who were present in the courtroom.
Appearing for the appellant, Gitanjali Angmo, Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal produced a letter from the doctor who had been attending to Wangchuk during the protest. Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, for the Union, tendered documents on the other side.
Perusing the reports filed on affidavit, Justice Karia noted that Wangchuk’s potassium levels had fallen. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, also appearing for the Centre, submitted that a patient’s clinical condition ordinarily carries greater weight than laboratory figures, telling the Court that clinical observation is generally more acceptable than the reports.
Probing the significance of certain findings, the Chief Justice asked a doctor present in court about the elevated urea and uric acid levels and whether the raised acid pointed to some malfunction. The doctor explained that in the absence of glucose intake, the body draws energy from fat, and that the resulting breakdown produces ketones in the urine changes he described as natural after prolonged days of fasting.
The exchange grew pointed as the parties contested how the data should be read. The ASG flagged what he called an alarming feature of the reports, submitting that the total leukocyte count had been described as “critical” and capable of leading to shock. A doctor from AIIMS, called upon by the Bench, said the low white blood cell count was abnormal, and that Wangchuk’s haemoglobin, WBC and platelet counts all fell outside the normal range.
The Director of AIIMS, also present, told the Court that while the potassium was undeniably low, oral potassium replacement was already under way. He cautioned that Wangchuk’s ability to fight off a potential infection would be significantly compromised, which is why those permitted to meet him within the hospital were required to be fully gowned, capped and masked.
Sibal argued that, notwithstanding the fluctuations in some parameters, his client’s vital signs remained stable, and that the monitoring the State sought to provide could continue without impediment wherever Wangchuk was treated.
He also placed on record a letter from Wangchuk stating that his phone had been taken away, that visitors were being barred, and that those allowed in were subjected to searches and surveillance.
Weighing these submissions against the medical picture, the Bench concluded that the doctors were, in substance, agreed on one point,
“After going through these reports, though we are not experts, after interacting with the doctors, what we understand is that there is a consensus that constant monitoring is needed. We propose to shift him to Medanta, the hospital of his choice.”
The Solicitor General said the government had no objection to the transfer, but voiced a caveat that Wangchuk ought not to secure a discharge against medical advice, adding that those around him wanted him out irrespective of his health.
The Court declined to enter that terrain, responding that it would not be drawn into such considerations.
Background of the case
Wangchuk commenced an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar in Delhi on June 28, in solidarity with the youth-led Cockroach Janta Party movement, which has been demanding accountability for a series of examination paper leaks and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
Earlier, On July 18, the Delhi Police removed him from the protest site and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital, citing concerns over his deteriorating health.
The following day, Angmo Wangchuk’s wife approached the High Court seeking his transfer to a private hospital, alleging that the family had lost confidence in Safdarjung owing to a lack of transparency about his treatment and medical reports, and contending that his continued stay there amounted to conditions akin to illegal detention.
Her appeal invoked Article 21 of the Constitution, asserting that the right to life embraces the right of a competent adult to refuse medical treatment and to choose the hospital where it is administered, and that his hospitalisation without consent violated his personal liberty, bodily autonomy and right to protest.
The dispute has passed through several judicial stages in quick succession. On July 16 two days before Wangchuk was moved a Division Bench of the High Court had directed the government to monitor his health regularly and to undertake whatever medical intervention was necessary to arrest his declining condition.
In her appeal, Angmo pointed out that neither she nor Wangchuk was a party to those proceedings, and argued that the July 16 order sanctioned only medical monitoring and did not authorise his forcible removal from the protest site or his continued confinement at a government hospital.
Additionally, On July 19, a single judge of the High Court prima facie held that the government’s decision to shift Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung was not arbitrary, and consequently declined to grant interim relief on Angmo’s plea to move him out of that hospital.
It was that refusal which Angmo challenged in the present appeal, contending that the single judge’s order effectively stripped Wangchuk of the right to determine the course of his own treatment and vested ultimate authority in the attending medical team.
A day before the present hearing, on July 20, the Division Bench had directed the Director of Safdarjung Hospital to place on record all details, including the pathological reports based on samples analysed at three institutions Safdarjung, AIIMS and a private laboratory.
It had also required Angmo to file the medical reports she relied upon, and ordered the doctors concerned to remain present in court for Tuesday’s hearing the exercise that culminated in the Court’s decision to permit the transfer to Medanta.
Case Title: Gitanjali Angmo v. Union of India