The Delhi HC will hear the transfer request to Wangchuk Hospital on July 21

Gitanjali J. Angmo. File | Photo credit: PTI

The Delhi High Court on Monday (July 20, 2026) posted for hearing on Tuesday (July 21) an appeal filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, seeking his transfer from the government-run Safdarjung Hospital to a hospital of her choice.

A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyay and Justice Tejas Karia said its immediate concern was to “save his life first” and sought to clarify Mr Wangchuk’s current health condition. The activist has been on hunger strike for 22 days.

The bench ordered that all pathology reports based on blood samples analyzed by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and a private laboratory be recorded. She also asked the chief doctor treating Mr. Wangchuk at Safdarjung Hospital as well as the private doctor consulted by the family to remain present at the next hearing.

Senior advocate Akhil Sibal, appearing for Ms Angmo, said Mr Wangchuk was “willing to be released against medical advice so that no blame falls on the treating doctor”.

“If he wishes, he will report to another hospital if necessary. Today, he does not want to be restricted from leaving the premises. He feels good, he is confident, he has a clear head. He is able to write a statement with his own hand. This scenario of a life-threatening situation has not yet occurred. He is not in the ICU. If such a situation occurs,” Mr. Sibal will take the necessary measures.

The right to protest

He argued that Mr. Wangchuk’s autonomy could not be curtailed without the sanction of law and stressed that he had a constitutional right to continue his protest. Citing judicial precedents, Mr Sibal argued that “hunger strikes are a recognized form of constitutionally protected protest” and “bodily autonomy should not be deprived in this way without the approval of law”.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the authorities, argued that while the right to protest is a fundamental right, it is not absolute when it comes to public interest and protection of life. “Everyone’s life, including the petitioner’s husband, is precious and needs to be protected,” Mr. Mehta said.

Responding to the allegations regarding discrepancies in the medical reports, the Solicitor General said that the blood samples were examined by Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and a private laboratory and that “all the three reports were essentially the same”.

Not absolute, says the government.

On the issue of bodily autonomy, Mr Mehta argued that while an individual normally has the right to accept or refuse medical treatment, the state’s interest becomes relevant if the protester’s deterioration could have wider consequences. “Under normal circumstances, it is the bodily autonomy of each individual to seek treatment or not. But when the consequence of deterioration of health or potential loss of life has an impact on the law and order situation, it is a matter of state interest,” he added.

“We are dealing with the case of a person who has the right to protest, which is a fundamental right. But we are also dealing with a person whose health deterioration or any unforeseen event could potentially have consequences. The right to bodily autonomy, like any other right, can therefore never be absolute,” Mehta said.

The appeal challenges a single judge’s ruling on Sunday (July 19) refusing to order Mr Wangchuk’s transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram, where his family wants him to be treated.

Published – 20 Jul 2026 11:19 IST