The Delhi High Court rejected a plea Sunday to transfer climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to a private facility [1].
The ruling maintains government control over the activist's medical placement during a period of heightened political tension. This decision underscores the legal boundary between a patient's preference for private care and the state's authority to manage health crises involving public figures.
Wangchuk was moved to Safdarjung Hospital after his health began deteriorating following an extended hunger strike [1, 2]. His wife filed a plea seeking his transfer to a private facility, with a hearing scheduled for 2:30 p.m. [3].
The court upheld the government's decision to keep him at the public facility, saying the move was not arbitrary [1, 2]. Judges said that Wangchuk remains a free citizen and is receiving necessary treatment with his own consent [1, 2].
Legal representatives for the activist had argued for the transfer based on the need for specialized care. However, the court said the government's actions were reasonable given the circumstances of his medical decline [1, 2].
Safdarjung Hospital is one of Delhi's primary government-run medical institutions. The court's refusal to mandate a transfer to a private clinic reinforces the adequacy of public health infrastructure in high-profile cases, provided the treatment is deemed consensual and non-arbitrary [1, 2].
“The Delhi High Court rejected a plea on Sunday to transfer climate activist Sonam Wangchuk to a private facility.”
This ruling clarifies that the state may maintain custody of a high-profile activist in a public medical facility if the treatment is consensual and the decision is not deemed arbitrary. By rejecting the transfer to a private hospital, the court has validated the government's medical management of Wangchuk following his hunger strike, potentially limiting the legal avenues for activists to challenge state-mandated healthcare placements.
