The Delhi High Court denied interim relief to climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, upholding a government decision to keep him at Safdarjung Hospital [1].
The ruling maintains the state's authority over the medical placement of activists during health crises, signaling a strict legal boundary between government-mandated care and private medical preferences during political protests.
Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo, had filed a plea requesting his transfer from the government-run facility to the private Medanta Hospital [1]. The court said the petition was rejected, affirming that government authorities acted appropriately given the circumstances of Wangchuk's health [2].
Wangchuk was hospitalized after conducting a hunger strike that lasted three weeks [1]. The court said the government was within its rights to shift the activist to the state hospital to ensure necessary medical intervention following the fast [2].
Safdarjung Hospital, a premier government facility in Delhi, remains the site of his current treatment. The court's refusal to grant interim relief means the activist will remain under state care for the duration of his recovery process [1].
Legal representatives for the activist had argued for the move to a private facility to ensure a different standard of care. However, the court said the government's actions were justified under the specific health needs arising from the prolonged hunger strike [2].
“The Delhi High Court denied interim relief to climate activist Sonam Wangchuk.”
This decision reinforces the legal precedent that the state can determine the appropriate medical facility for individuals in custody or under state care, particularly when those health issues result from political protests. By upholding the placement at Safdarjung Hospital, the court has prioritized the government's administrative discretion over the personal medical preferences of the activist's family.
