The Delhi High Court on Sunday declined to grant interim relief to activist Sonam Wangchuk's wife in her plea seeking permission to shift him from Safdarjung Hospital to a private medical facility. The court observed that the government's decision to hospitalise Wangchuk after his prolonged hunger strike could not be termed arbitrary and directed authorities to file a status report within three days.

The matter was heard by Justice Mini Pushkarna. Senior Advocates Kapil Sibal and Vivek Tankha appeared for Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, while Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma represented the Centre. The next hearing has been scheduled for July 24.

During the hearing, the court noted that Wangchuk had been on a hunger strike for over two weeks and referred to an earlier Division Bench order directing authorities to monitor his health. Taking note of the Centre's submissions and the medical records placed before it, the court observed that his blood sugar and sodium levels were low, while his potassium levels had fallen to a "dangerously low" level.

The court also recorded that doctors had not administered intravenous (IV) fluids because Wangchuk had not consented to the treatment. It was observed that the medical team at Safdarjung Hospital was respecting his wishes by limiting intervention to treatment he had agreed to.

"Since govt has taken decision to shift him to hospital on account of his medical condition, this court does not find same to be arbitrary action," the court observed. It further noted that no force had been used to administer treatment against Wangchuk's wishes.

Rejecting the plea for interim relief, the court said it was also taking note of the Centre's submission that Wangchuk was not under detention. It observed that since he had not voluntarily admitted himself to any hospital despite his deteriorating condition, the government was within its rights to intervene.

Calling the protection of life paramount, the court remarked, "Every life is precious."

The court also recorded the Centre's statement that Wangchuk's wife and brother have been given unrestricted 24x7 access to him at Safdarjung Hospital and that a separate room has been provided for family members. It further noted the government's assurance that all medical reports would be shared with the family.

While Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal raised concerns over the presence of police personnel outside Wangchuk's hospital room, the court did not pass any interim directions on the issue.

The court directed the Centre to file its reply within three days and said Wangchuk's medical condition would continue to be monitored by the hospital's medical team in accordance with established medical protocols. When asked whether Wangchuk should cooperate with doctors, the court clarified that it was not compelling him to undergo any treatment.

"I am not forcing him. I have not passed any direction... if he so chooses," Justice Pushkarna remarked. The ASG responded that medical decisions could not depend entirely on patient preference in a life-threatening situation, particularly if he were to refuse even water. The court then clarified that the medical team would take decisions in line with medical protocols.

The hearing stemmed from a petition filed by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, seeking permission to shift the activist from Safdarjung Hospital to a private medical facility. She had alleged that the hospital was not providing complete information about his medical condition and had prevented an independent assessment.

Angmo also claimed that she had sought a second opinion regarding Wangchuk's potassium levels but was denied timely access to blood samples for independent testing. According to her, the delay prevented an immediate verification of the hospital's findings.

Wangchuk was taken to Safdarjung Hospital by Delhi Police on Saturday after remaining on an indefinite hunger strike since June 28 in support of the CJP-led protest over alleged irregularities in the NEET examination and reported student deaths linked to the controversy. The High Court will hear the matter again on July 24.