‘No Violation of Liberty’: Delhi HC on Sonam Wangchuk’s Hospital Transfer

The Delhi High Court on Sunday observed that the government's decision to shift climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from the site of his fast to Safdarjung Hospital, in view of his deteriorating health, could not prima facie be termed arbitrary and did not infringe his personal liberty, as the step was taken to protect his life.

The Court also found no grounds to grant interim relief seeking his transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice.

Justice Mini Pushkarna made the observations while hearing a petition filed by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, seeking directions to shift him to Medanta Hospital, Gurugram.

She had contended that Wangchuk was being kept in Safdarjung Hospital without his or his family's consent and argued that, since he was not under detention, he could not be confined to the government hospital against his wishes.

The Union Government opposed the plea, submitting that Wangchuk's health had deteriorated significantly after his prolonged fast and that the decision to move him to Safdarjung Hospital was taken in view of his worsening vital parameters.

What Did the Delhi High Court Say About Sonam Wangchuk’s Critical Health Condition and Treatment Consent?

The Court was also provided with his medical records and heard submissions from doctors of Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS, who are monitoring his condition.

The High Court noted that Wangchuk had been fasting for nearly 17 to 18 days and referred to an earlier order of a Division Bench dated July 16, which had directed that his health be monitored daily and that all necessary medical intervention be undertaken to prevent further deterioration.

The Court observed that the government shifted him to the hospital in compliance with those directions and because of his perilous medical condition.

The Court further recorded that Wangchuk's sugar and sodium levels were below the normal range and that his potassium levels were stated to be dangerously low, posing a risk of life-threatening complications.

It also noted the government's submission that intravenous fluids had not been administered because Wangchuk had not consented to the treatment.

Observing that doctors at Safdarjung Hospital were closely monitoring Wangchuk and administering only those medicines and oral electrolytes for which he had given consent, the Court held that it could not be said that any force was being used against him or that his bodily autonomy was being violated.

The Court also addressed the argument that Wangchuk was a free citizen and not under detention. It was observed that merely taking him from the protest site to a hospital, considering his vulnerable medical condition caused by prolonged fasting, did not prima facie amount to an infringement of his personal liberty.

(With inputs from ANI)