The Delhi High Court on Monday directed the authorities to place on record all medical and pathological reports relating to activist Sonam Wangchuk and asked the Director (In-charge) of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and Dr Akshay, the Emergency Medicine specialist associated with the medical team treating climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, to remain personally present at the next hearing.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia passed the directions while hearing an appeal filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, challenging a single-judge Bench order that refused to transfer the activist from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice while balancing his right to bodily autonomy against the State’s obligation to preserve life. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 21 at 12:30 pm.
Senior Advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for the appellant, submitted that the High Court’s earlier order directing authorities to monitor Wangchuk’s health and provide medical intervention, if necessary, did not authorise officials to forcibly remove him from the protest site. He argued that Wangchuk was neither under arrest nor in detention and, therefore, retained his constitutional right to bodily autonomy, informed consent and the freedom to choose his treating doctors and medical institution.
Relying on the Constitution Bench judgment in Common Cause v. Union of India, Sibal contended that a competent adult has the right to refuse medical treatment or seek treatment at a hospital of his choice.
Sibal further argued that Wangchuk and his family had not been provided copies of the medical reports on the basis of which he was shifted from Jantar Mantar to Safdarjung Hospital. He submitted that the grievance was not against medical treatment itself but against the absence of transparency and the denial of access to the medical records relied upon by the authorities.
According to the appellant, fresh reports obtained from a private laboratory indicated that Wangchuk’s potassium levels were within the normal range, and he had also sought permission from the hospital to leave and participate in the concluding phase of his protest.
The Union Government opposed the plea, with Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitting that the intervention was undertaken solely to protect Wangchuk’s life after deterioration in his medical condition. He argued that although bodily autonomy is a recognised fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution, it is not absolute and may be subject to reasonable restrictions where protection of life and maintenance of public order become relevant considerations.
The Solicitor General informed the Court that an AIIMS specialist had been associated with the treating team and that blood samples had been independently analysed by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and a private laboratory, with all reports being substantially consistent.
During the hearing, the Bench observed that pathological reports must be evaluated alongside the patient’s overall clinical condition and not in isolation. The Court also noted the apparent variation between different potassium readings placed before it and indicated that expert medical assistance was necessary before arriving at any conclusion. It emphasised that its immediate concern was safeguarding Wangchuk’s life while ensuring that all relevant medical material was available for judicial scrutiny.
Taking note of the rival submissions, the Division Bench directed the respondents to file, on affidavit, all pathological reports generated from blood samples analysed by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and the concerned private laboratory. It also directed the appellant to place on record the laboratory reports relied upon by her. In addition, the Court ordered the production of all medical health bulletins issued from time to time regarding Wangchuk’s condition to enable a comprehensive assessment of his treatment.
The Bench requested the personal appearance of the Director (In-charge), AIIMS, along with Dr. Akshay, the emergency medicine specialist associated with Wangchuk’s treatment, to assist the Court at the next hearing. It also permitted the doctor consulted by Wangchuk’s family to remain present so that the Court could hear all medical experts before deciding whether his transfer to a private hospital would be medically appropriate.
The appeal arises from the single-judge Bench order passed on July 19, which declined to interfere with Wangchuk’s treatment at Safdarjung Hospital after holding that the authorities’ decision to shift him from the protest site could not be considered arbitrary in view of his medical condition and the earlier judicial directions requiring continuous medical monitoring.
The single-judge Bench had observed that the treating medical team would take decisions strictly in accordance with established medical protocol and found no grounds at that stage to direct his immediate transfer to another hospital.
The post Delhi High Court summons AIIMS Director and Emergency Medicine specialist treating Sonam Wangchuk in hospital transfer matter appeared first on India Legal.