HC rejects plea to transfer Wangchuk from Safdarjung
Delhi High Court declined interim relief in a plea to transfer activist Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to another hospital of his choice while he was under medical monitoring during a hunger strike.
- The court declined interim relief in the transfer plea and issued notices to the Centre, Safdarjung Hospital, and the police.
- She filed the petition and argued that Sonam Wangchuk had been shifted without consent and that his own doctors were not being allowed to examine him.
- He argued that medical intervention should continue because Sonam Wangchuk's health had deteriorated after prolonged fasting and that medicines were given with consent.
- He argued that the State could not compel Sonam Wangchuk to remain in a government hospital.
The Delhi High Court declined interim relief in a petition seeking to transfer activist Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to another hospital of his choice. The court held that the transfer to Safdarjung was not arbitrary because it was made in response to his worsening medical condition during a hunger strike.
The dispute is relevant for UPSC because it combines Article 21, medical consent, bodily autonomy, and the role of courts in emergency health situations. It also shows the tension between a patient's choice and the State's duty to provide immediate medical care when health risks intensify.
What happened
UPSC can frame this as a question on the limits of state intervention in emergency medical care, the scope of bodily autonomy, and how courts balance personal liberty with life-saving treatment. The issue also connects to constitutional protections under Article 21 and to ethical questions around consent, coercion, and paternalism.
Related dispatches
