Delhi High Court Turns Down Immediate Transfer Request for Activist Sonam Wangchuk

Sonam Wangchuk, the climate activist whose 21‑day hunger strike at Jantar Mantar ended with his detention, has been lying in a Ward at Safdarjung Government Hospital since early July. His wife, Gitanjali Angmo, went to the Delhi High Court on 19 July 2026, pleading for an urgent shift to a private hospital of the family’s choosing.

In her petition, Angmo painted a stark picture: more than thirty police officers crowded the ward, and there were well over a hundred uniformed men roving the corridors of the hospital. She called this setup an “illegal detention,” arguing that the presence of law‑enforcement personnel effectively barred her husband from seeing his own doctors and even his counsel.

The court, presided over by Justice Mini Pushkarna, listened patiently but did not grant the immediate relocation. Instead, the bench ordered the hospital authorities to file a detailed status report on Wangchuk’s medical condition and the security arrangements. The matter was then posted for a further hearing on 24 July 2026.

Government officials, for their part, have maintained that Wangchuk is not being “detained” in the legal sense. They said the police presence is a routine precaution, given the high‑profile nature of the case, and that the activist can be transferred to AIIMS or any other government‑run facility if his health demands it.

Angmo’s request also highlighted a discrepancy in Wangchuk’s blood‑potassium readings – Safdarjung reported 2.9 mmol/L, while an independent test showed 3.5 mmol/L. The family argued that the lower figure could be a reason for keeping him under tighter watch.

While the court’s refusal to order an immediate shift disappointed the petitioner, the upcoming hearing offers a window for both sides to present medical evidence, discuss security protocols, and possibly negotiate a transfer that satisfies the health concerns without compromising the investigation.

As the legal drama unfolds, the public remains divided: some view the police’s presence as a necessary safeguard, others see it as a heavy‑handed attempt to curb a dissenting voice. Whatever the outcome, the case underscores the delicate balance between law‑enforcement, medical care, and civil liberties in a democracy.