The Delhi High Court held a special Sunday hearing regarding the hospitalization of activist Sonam Wangchuk and questioned why he could not be treated at his protest site [1, 2].
The case highlights a legal conflict over the right to protest versus state-mandated medical intervention. While the government asserts a duty of care for a citizen's health, the activist's family argues that the forced removal from the Jantar Mantar site was unnecessary.
Wangchuk was admitted to Safdarjung Government Hospital [3] after a hunger strike that lasted between 18 and 19 days [1, 4]. The government said that moving the activist from the protest site was necessary due to potential health complications resulting from the extended fast [1, 2].
However, Wangchuk's wife filed a petition seeking his transfer from the government facility to a private medical facility of the family's choice [2, 5]. She said that there was no immediate medical need for the hospitalization and requested the court's intervention to allow a private provider to manage his care [1, 2].
During the proceedings, the court focused on the logistics of the medical care provided. The judges asked the government to explain why medical treatment could not have been administered at the Jantar Mantar protest site rather than removing the activist to a hospital [2].
Reports on Wangchuk's current status vary. One account said he remained fasting after his hospitalization [1], while another suggested he may have eaten [4]. Supporters of the movement said that even if Wangchuk ate, it would not take away anything from the protest [4].
"The petitioner seeks transfer of Mr. Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to a private medical facility of his family’s choice," the court said [5].
“The Delhi High Court questioned why Sonam Wangchuk could not be treated at the Jantar Mantar protest site.”
This legal challenge underscores the tension between state authority and individual autonomy during political protests. By questioning why treatment could not occur on-site, the Delhi High Court is examining whether the government used medical necessity as a pretext to remove a high-profile activist from a public demonstration space.
