Gitanjali J Angmo has challenged a court order keeping activist Sonam Wangchuk at Safdarjung Hospital. The appeal questions the lack of informed consent regarding his medical care. This follows the activist's removal from a protest site after a 21-day hunger strike.
Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, has approached the Delhi High Court to contest an order that maintains his stay at Safdarjung Hospital. This legal challenge follows an earlier ruling by a single judge who declined to interfere with the government's decision to move Mr. Wangchuk to the state-run facility for medical monitoring.
Mr. Wangchuk was transferred to Safdarjung Hospital by the Delhi Police on Saturday, the 21st day of his hunger strike. He has been protesting since June 28, primarily raising concerns regarding irregularities in competitive examinations and the cancellation of the NEET paper. The core of Ms. Angmo's appeal lies in the argument that the current arrangement restricts her husband’s fundamental right to make decisions about his own medical treatment. The petition specifically highlights a lack of informed consent, describing his continued presence at the hospital as a form of confinement.
In the previous session, Justice Mini Pushkarna had refused to grant an interim order for Mr. Wangchuk’s transfer to a private hospital. The court maintained that the government’s action to move him was justified, citing the need to protect his health as his condition deteriorated during the strike. The judge observed that the state is obligated to monitor his well-being under existing medical protocols and that his transfer did not constitute an infringement of his bodily integrity.
The court emphasized that the medical team attending to Mr. Wangchuk is responsible for decisions regarding his care in line with established clinical procedures. As the legal proceedings move forward, the upcoming hearing will focus on the arguments surrounding patient autonomy and the balance between state intervention for health safety and an individual's right to refuse treatment. Investors and observers often track such high-profile legal matters involving public figures as they can sometimes influence the stability of social and administrative environments in the capital.