Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, has filed an intra-court appeal before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, challenging the order of a single-judge Bench that refused to grant interim relief for Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram.
The appeal seeks to set aside the order passed by Justice Mini Pushkarna in Gitanjali Angmo vs Union of India, contending that it infringes Wangchuk’s fundamental rights to personal liberty, bodily autonomy and informed consent guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Wangchuk has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since June 28 in solidarity with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) movement, demanding accountability for alleged irregularities and repeated paper leaks in competitive examinations, including NEET, and the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
On July 18, Delhi Police shifted him from the protest site to Safdarjung Hospital after his health reportedly deteriorated following the prolonged fast. The transfer followed an earlier order dated July 16 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court directing the authorities to monitor Wangchuk’s health on a daily basis and undertake such medical intervention as may be necessary in view of his deteriorating condition.
On July 19, Angmo approached the High Court seeking directions to transfer Wangchuk to a private hospital of his choice, alleging that her family had lost confidence in the treatment being provided at Safdarjung Hospital due to an alleged lack of transparency regarding his medical condition, treatment protocol and diagnostic reports.
She also claimed that Wangchuk was being kept in the hospital under circumstances amounting to illegal and unconstitutional confinement despite there being no criminal case, arrest or detention order against him.
Justice Pushkarna prima facie held that the government’s decision to shift Wangchuk from the protest site to Safdarjung Hospital could not be termed arbitrary. The Court observed that Wangchuk had not voluntarily admitted himself to any hospital despite his deteriorating health and that the authorities were justified in intervening to protect his life.
It further noted that he was being monitored by doctors from Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS in accordance with established medical protocol, that he had consented to receiving oral sugar-free oral rehydration solution and potassium supplements, and that there was no material to indicate any violation of his bodily autonomy.
The Single Judge also observed that the medical team would take the ultimate decision regarding the assessment and management of his medical condition in accordance with accepted medical standards and clinical protocol.
Aggrieved by the order, Angmo has contended before the Division Bench that the Single Judge’s directions effectively deprive Wangchuk, a conscious and competent adult, of his constitutional right to determine the course of his medical treatment and vest that authority exclusively in the treating doctors.
According to the appeal, the order permits medical professionals to override the wishes of a competent patient, thereby violating the principles of bodily autonomy, informed consent and self-determination, which form an integral part of the right to life and personal liberty under Article 21.
The appeal asserts that a competent adult has the constitutional right to refuse medical treatment and to choose the hospital and medical practitioner from whom such treatment is received. It argues that Wangchuk’s continued hospitalisation without his free consent amounts to an unlawful restriction on his personal liberty, bodily integrity and right to continue his peaceful protest.
The appeal further submits that the July 16 order of the Division Bench authorised only medical monitoring and necessary healthcare intervention and did not empower the authorities to forcibly remove Wangchuk from the protest site or continue his confinement in a government hospital. It also points out that neither Wangchuk nor Angmo was a party to those earlier proceedings and, therefore, no coercive action affecting their legal rights could have been founded on that order.
The appeal has also questioned the medical basis for Wangchuk’s continued hospitalisation by disputing the potassium levels recorded by Safdarjung Hospital. According to the appeal, the hospital claimed that his potassium level had fallen to 2.9 mEq/L, necessitating urgent medical intervention.
However, Angmo has relied on independent laboratory reports which allegedly recorded potassium levels of 3.6 mEq/L and 3.76 mEq/L, both within the normal reference range, to contend that the medical emergency projected by the authorities was not supported by subsequent diagnostic findings.
The appeal, however, acknowledges that the Single Judge had also taken note of medical submissions indicating that Wangchuk’s blood sugar and sodium levels were below the normal range and that his potassium level had been reported to be dangerously low by the treating doctors.
Seeking urgent intervention, the appeal prays for the setting aside and stay of the Single Judge’s order and for permission to shift Wangchuk to a hospital chosen by him and his family. It further seeks complete disclosure of his medical records, unrestricted access for his lawyers and private doctors, and a direction restraining the authorities from administering any medicine, intravenous fluids or any other medical intervention without his free and informed consent.
The post Gitanjali Angmo challenges Delhi High Court order refusing hospital transfer to Sonam Wangchuk appeared first on India Legal.