The Delhi High Court ordered the immediate transfer of Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi to Medanta Hospital in Gurugram [1].
The move comes as a judicial intervention to ensure the activist receives specialized care and security following a prolonged period of fasting. Because Wangchuk is a high-profile figure advocating for environmental and regional protections, his health status and safety have become focal points for legal and public scrutiny.
The court said the transfer was necessary to protect his safety and uphold his fundamental rights [1]. This decision followed reports of deteriorating health concerns linked to a hunger strike. While reports on the exact duration of the protest vary, some sources state the strike lasted 24 days [2], while others report it lasted 20 days [3].
Wangchuk had been receiving treatment at Safdarjung Hospital in Delhi before the court intervened to propose the shift to the Medanta facility in Gurugram [1]. The judicial order emphasizes the priority of the patient's well-being and the necessity of a secure environment for recovery.
The transfer process was initiated following the high court's directive to prioritize the activist's medical needs [1]. Medanta Hospital is equipped to handle the complex health complications that often arise after extended periods of fasting, including electrolyte imbalances and organ stress.
Legal representatives and supporters of Wangchuk have monitored the situation closely, viewing the court's order as a critical step in safeguarding the activist's life [1]. The court's focus on fundamental rights suggests that the medical transfer is not merely a clinical necessity but a legal requirement to prevent further harm [1].
“The Delhi High Court ordered the immediate transfer of Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital.”
The court's intervention highlights the tension between state custody or monitoring and the fundamental right to health for political activists. By moving Wangchuk to a private facility like Medanta, the judiciary is prioritizing medical safety and specialized care over the convenience of state-run hospitals, signaling a protective stance toward the activist's physical survival during a period of high political volatility.
