Sonam Wangchuk's wife has moved the Delhi HC Division Bench, challenging a single-judge order refusing to transfer the activist to a private hospital. The appeal argues the order violates his fundamental rights and bodily autonomy.
Wife Challenges Order, Cites Violation of Rights
A day after the Delhi High Court declined to direct the transfer of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice, his wife, Dr Gitanjali J Angmo, has moved the Division Bench challenging the Single Judge's order, contending that it violates Wangchuk's fundamental rights to bodily autonomy, informed consent and personal liberty.
According to Wangchuk's legal team, senior counsel is likely to mention the appeal before the Division Bench today, seeking urgent listing and hearing.
In the appeal, Angmo has argued that the Single Judge's order effectively deprives Sonam Wangchuk and his wife of the authority to decide his medical treatment by vesting the ultimate decision in the medical team attending him at Safdarjung Hospital.
The plea submits that the impugned order fails to deal with the issue of informed consent and overlooks the settled legal principle that a competent patient has the right to accept, refuse or discontinue medical treatment.
The appeal further contends that although the Single Judge recorded that Wangchuk is neither under arrest nor under detention, the order effectively confines him to Safdarjung Hospital without any legal authority.
It alleges that the order authorises medical intervention, including administration of food, without Wangchuk's consent, thereby violating his bodily autonomy guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
Relying on the Supreme Court's decisions in Common Cause v. Union of India and Samira Kohli v. Dr. Prabha Manchanda, the appeal argues that every competent patient has the right to make informed decisions regarding medical treatment and that any medical intervention without free and informed consent is impermissible except in limited emergency circumstances.
Hunger Strike as a Form of Protest
The appeal also claims that Wangchuk's continued confinement at Safdarjung Hospital infringes his rights under Articles 19 and 21 by preventing him from continuing his peaceful hunger strike and protest at Jantar Mantar.
Referring to the Supreme Court's ruling in the Ramlila Maidan Incident case, the plea submits that a hunger strike is a constitutionally recognised form of protest and cannot be curtailed by forcibly confining a protester in a hospital in the absence of any lawful detention.
It has also been submitted that Wangchuk was never consulted before being taken to Safdarjung Hospital and that neither he nor his wife was given an opportunity to choose the hospital or the doctors treating him.
The appeal alleges that there is no evidence of any deterioration in his health justifying such coercive action and argues that if the authorities believed immediate medical intervention was necessary, they ought to have sought the Court's permission before removing him from the protest site.
The appeal seeks setting aside of the July 19 order and directions permitting Wangchuk to be shifted to a private hospital of his choice while protecting his rights relating to medical treatment and personal liberty.
High Court's Initial Ruling
On July 19, Justice Mini Pushkarna declined to grant interim relief directing Sonam Wangchuk's transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital, observing that there was no prima facie violation of his personal liberty as the government's decision to shift him from the protest site was taken to protect his life in view of his deteriorating health.
The Court noted that Wangchuk had been on a prolonged fast for nearly 17-18 days and referred to the Division Bench's July 16 order directing daily medical monitoring and necessary medical intervention to prevent further deterioration.
It held that the government had shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital in compliance with those directions after his medical condition became precarious.
After considering submissions from the Union Government and doctors from Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS, the Court noted that Wangchuk's blood sugar and sodium levels were below normal and that his potassium levels posed a risk of life-threatening complications.
The government also informed the Court that intravenous fluids had not been administered as Wangchuk had not consented to the treatment.
The Court observed that doctors were administering only those medicines and oral electrolytes for which Wangchuk had given consent and held that there was nothing to indicate that force was being used against him or that his bodily autonomy was being violated.
It further held that shifting him from the protest site to a hospital, in the circumstances, could not prima facie be termed arbitrary or an infringement of his personal liberty, adding that the State had a duty to protect his life.
The High Court also recorded the Centre's statement that Wangchuk's wife, brother and brother-in-law had been granted unrestricted 24x7 access to meet him and that a separate room had been provided for the family.
It further recorded the assurance of Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma that Wangchuk's medical reports would be shared with his family.
Holding that no case for interim relief was made out, the Court directed the Union Government to file a status report within three days and listed the matter for further hearing on July 24.
It also observed that while Wangchuk may choose whether to cooperate with medical intervention, the ultimate assessment of his medical condition and treatment would rest with the medical team, which must continue to monitor his condition and act in accordance with strict medical protocols to safeguard his life.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by Asianet Newsable English staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)