Delhi High Court upholds government authority to shift Sonam Wangchuk to hospital as he did not voluntarily seek medical care

In a decision that struck the activist community at large, the Delhi High Court confirmed that the state possessed the authority to relocate Sonam Wangchuk to a hospital, citing that he had not voluntarily sought medical care. The ruling was based on the court’s interpretation that the citizen’s refusal of treatment did not bar the government from acting in perceived medical emergency.

Interpreting the Court’s Ruling

Judges in the hearing noted that the governor’s directive to transport Mr Wangchuk complied with legal provisions that empower the state to intervene when an individual does not seek aid on their own, arguing that the civil‑jurisdiction act permits medical intervention under such circumstances.

From Jantar Mantar to Safdar Jung Hospital

The activist, aged 59, had fasted for 21 days at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar square in protest of alleged exam‑paper leaks and campaigning for education reforms. Medical officers from Safdar Jung Hospital, following a Delhi High Court instruction, admitted him early Saturday morning after he lost nearly nine kilograms and displayed severe dehydration and hypokalaemia.

Doctors at the public hospital recorded the patient as stable yet vulnerable, noting low potassium levels that were considered life‑threatening. Despite repeated counselling, Mr Wangchuk reportedly declined intravenous fluids, oral rehydration, and prescribed medications.

Family’s Petition for Transfer

Dr Gitanjali J Angmo, Mr Wangchuk’s wife and a physician herself, filed an urgent petition in the Delhi High Court at about four a.m. demanding that he be discharged and moved to a private medical facility chosen by the family. She alleged that the public hospital withheld critical information about his condition and that his potassium level had been misrepresented.

The petition gained media attention when the family succeeded in securing an emergency hearing scheduled for 2:30 p.m. before Justice Mini Pushkarna. Senior advocates volunteered to represent the wife pro bono, and the Solicitor General was expected to appear virtually during the proceedings.

Political and Legal Reactions

Members of the Cockroach Janta Party, which Mr Wangchuk has been leading in its funeral‑style rally, accused the state of committing an ‘illegal detention’ by moving him without consent. They warned that the July 20 march to Parliament could be disrupted if the activist’s location remained unclear.

Classical civil‑rights groups expressed concern that the ruling might set a precedent for coercing vulnerable or dissenting citizens into institutional care without clear legal thresholds for consent.

Implications for the Parliament March

The scheduled march to Parliament on July 20, a core component of the activists’ campaign, faces uncertainty as authorities have not yet approved the rally. If the government proceeds with the court’s authority to move Mr Wangchuk, the march could continue under the broader boycott of the public protest, but supporters fear that any perceived interference will galvanise larger demonstrations at Parliament.