The Court rules that the government's action to move Sonam Wangchuk to Safdarjung Hospital due to his critical health condition from a prolonged hunger strike does not infringe on personal liberty.
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has upheld the government's decision to transfer Mr. Sonam Wangchuk, who was on a prolonged hunger strike, to Safdarjung Hospital for medical care. The decision was delivered on July 19, 2026, by Justice Mini Pushkarna in response to a writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The petitioner, Gitanjali J. Angmo, sought a directive to allow Mr. Wangchuk to be shifted to a hospital of his choice, citing concerns about his confinement at Safdarjung Hospital without consent. However, the Court noted that the government's intervention was necessitated by Mr. Wangchuk's worsening health condition due to his prolonged fasting as a form of protest.
The Court highlighted that the government's action was not arbitrary and was taken to protect Mr. Wangchuk's life and ensure his well-being. Emphasizing the importance of safeguarding life, the Court declared that such measures are within the government's duty, especially when the individual's health is in a precarious state.
The judgment underscored that despite Mr. Wangchuk's critical condition, no invasive medical treatment was administered without his consent, respecting his bodily autonomy. The medical team at Safdarjung Hospital provided only non-invasive treatments like sugar-free oral electrolytes, keeping in line with his consent.
Furthermore, the Court noted that Mr. Wangchuk's family was granted unprecedented access to him, with 24x7 visitation rights, and arrangements were made for them to stay close to him. This step was taken to ensure transparency and involve the family in Mr. Wangchuk's care.
The government, represented by the Solicitor General of India, argued that the decision to shift Mr. Wangchuk was in compliance with a prior order from a Division Bench of the Court, which mandated regular monitoring of his health and necessary medical interventions.
The Court has directed the respondents to file a status report within three days and has scheduled the next hearing for July 24, 2026. It also noted that medical reports of Mr. Wangchuk will be shared with his family members, ensuring they are kept informed about his health condition.
In conclusion, the ruling emphasizes the government's obligation to protect life while balancing individual rights, setting a precedent for similar cases involving health interventions during protests.
Bottom line:-
A government's decision to shift an individual to a hospital due to a precarious medical condition, arising from a prolonged hunger strike, does not violate personal liberty if it is done to protect life and ensure well-being.
Statutory provision(s): Article 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950
Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2942991
