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
A petition filed by Sonam Wangchuk's wife sought his transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to another hospital of his choice. The plea said he had been shifted from the hunger-strike site without consent and that his own doctors were not being allowed to examine him.
The Delhi High Court did not grant interim relief on the transfer request. The court's reasoning, as reported, was that doctors at Safdarjung Hospital were closely monitoring him and that the hospital transfer was linked to his deteriorating condition.
Court hearing and arguments
Related current affairs
- Sonam Wangchuk shifted from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta after HC order
- After HC direction on wife’s petition, Wangchuk shifted to Medanta Hospital
- Police move Wangchuk to hospital on Day 21 of fast
- AIIMS expert backed urgent treatment, says hospital
- Delhi HC seeks rationale for MP/MLA endorsement to get Lakshmi Yojana aid
- HC questions govt. on need for MP/MLA endorsement to avail Lakshmi Yojana aid