The Delhi High Court on July 19, 2026, upheld the Union Government's decision to shift climate activist and education reform advocate Sonam Wangchuk to Safdarjung Hospital following concerns about his deteriorating health during an ongoing hunger strike.
The matter came before the High Court after Wangchuk's wife, Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo, sought judicial intervention for his transfer from the government-run Safdarjung Hospital to a private medical facility. The petition alleged that Wangchuk was moved against his wishes and raised concerns regarding the transparency of his treatment and continued stay at the hospital.
During the hearing, the government submitted that the decision to hospitalize Wangchuk was taken solely on medical advice after health experts warned of serious risks arising from his prolonged fast. Authorities argued that the transfer was necessary to ensure continuous medical monitoring and prevent any life-threatening complications.
The Court examined the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk's hospitalization and noted that the authorities had acted in response to medical concerns rather than for any arbitrary or punitive purpose. It observed that the available material did not indicate the use of force in administering treatment and that only oral fluids and supplements had been provided with Wangchuk's consent.
Declining to grant immediate relief, the High Court permitted Wangchuk to continue receiving treatment at Safdarjung Hospital until further consideration of the matter. The Court also sought updated medical information regarding his condition before the next hearing.
The case has attracted significant public attention due to Wangchuk's ongoing protest and hunger strike. While his supporters have alleged that the hospitalization interferes with his right to continue the protest, the government maintains that its actions were guided exclusively by medical necessity and concern for his wellbeing.
The proceedings highlight the delicate balance courts often must strike between an individual's personal autonomy and the State's responsibility to protect life and health, particularly in cases involving prolonged hunger strikes and public demonstrations.