The Delhi High Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of Sonam Wangchuk, challenging a single-judge order that had refused to intervene in his ongoing treatment at Safdarjung Hospital. Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, placed the plea before a bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia and asked for it to be listed urgently. The bench responded immediately, saying, "Alright. We will hear it today." That gave the case a same-day path into court instead of dragging into the following days.
Sibal told the bench that the single judge had "misread" the July 16 order, which had directed authorities to keep monitoring Wangchuk's health and to step in medically if the situation demanded it. His argument was that the intent of that earlier order was to safeguard Wangchuk's health, not to keep him confined to one particular hospital. Sibal further told the court that police had taken Wangchuk away from Jantar Mantar "forcibly," and that he now wants to move out of Safdarjung Hospital into a hospital of his own choosing. Every individual, Sibal argued, is entitled to choose the medical treatment they receive, and "this right cannot be taken away." The submission rested squarely on the patient's autonomy and freedom to choose his own care.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the authorities, asked whether the matter could instead be taken up at 3:30 pm the same day or on Tuesday, so that the government side would have adequate time to respond. The bench settled on a middle path, fixing the appeal for hearing at 2:30 pm that same afternoon, meaning the plea was neither deferred nor rushed but given a same-day slot.
What the appeal argues
In her appeal, Angmo has stated that the single judge's Sunday order effectively forces Wangchuk to remain at Safdarjung Hospital unlawfully, even though he has not been arrested. The appeal notes that the order goes on to say that neither Wangchuk nor his wife has the final say in decisions about his medical treatment, a finding Angmo has flagged as a serious objection in her petition. The appeal also argues that the order failed to account for "informed consent" and for a person's fundamental right to accept or refuse their own treatment.
What the High Court had ruled on Sunday
The Delhi High Court had declined on Sunday to intervene in the matter of Wangchuk's ongoing treatment. Justice Mini Pushkarna had held that, at that stage, no interim order was required on the plea filed by his wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, seeking his transfer to a private hospital. During that special Sunday hearing, Justice Pushkarna observed that doctors at Safdarjung Hospital were continuously monitoring Wangchuk's health and that it could not be said he was being subjected to any coercion.
Justice Pushkarna also made clear that the government's decision to move Wangchuk from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital could not be treated as arbitrary. Referring back to the same July 16 order that had directed authorities to monitor Wangchuk's health and intervene medically if necessary, the judge noted that since Wangchuk had not admitted himself to any hospital on his own, it fell within the government's authority, given his deteriorating health, to take him to Safdarjung. The court's order stated, "Since the government took the decision to take Sonam Wangchuk to hospital in view of his medical condition, the court does not consider this an arbitrary action." Angmo had sought urgent hearing of her plea on Sunday itself, prompting the special sitting that produced that ruling.
The hunger strike behind the legal fight
Sonam Wangchuk has been on an indefinite hunger strike since June 28. The strike is being held in support of a protest led by the Cockroach Janata Party (COJPA), which is demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. It is this hunger strike, and Wangchuk's worsening health during it, that led authorities to move him from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital in the first place, and that has now triggered the courtroom dispute over where and how he should be treated. The government has cited his health monitoring and safety as its justification, while his wife has pressed the argument that he has a right to be treated at a hospital of his own choosing.
