Why Sonam Wangchuk Was Hospitalised: Low Potassium Levels and the Toll of Prolonged Fasting

On Sunday, the Central Government appeared before a single‑judge bench of the Delhi High Court and tried to explain why climate activist Sonam Wangchuk had been shifted to Safdarjung Government Hospital. The crux of their argument was simple, albeit stark: a prolonged hunger strike had driven his potassium down to a life‑threatening 2.9 mmol/L, and the humid weather had only made matters worse.

Wangchuk, who has been on an indefinite fast for more than two weeks as part of a protest against alleged paper leaks in the 2026 NEET‑UG exam, was taken into police custody on Saturday and escorted to the hospital. His wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, immediately filed a petition asking the court to allow her husband’s transfer to a private facility of his choice, arguing that his condition was stable and that the public hospital was withholding medical records.

During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma told Justice Mini Pushkarna that “18 days of fasting in humid weather can dehydrate any normal person and lead to ketosis.” He warned that low potassium could impair kidney function and urged that Wangchuk continue to be monitored at Safdarjung, which he described as a “top‑notch” government institution. Sharma even offered to move the activist to AIIMS if the court deemed it necessary.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, pressed back. He highlighted that the activist’s vital signs were reportedly stable and that the family had been denied unrestricted access to doctors and lawyers over the past 20 days. “Is a citizen of India not entitled to choose the hospital where he receives treatment?” Sibal asked, emphasizing that there was no criminal case pending against Wangchuk.

Angmo’s social‑media post underscored her frustration: the hospital’s public bulletin mentioned “decreasing” blood parameters but omitted the exact potassium figure, even though she had been told it was “alarming and life‑threatening.” She appealed to the court for an urgent hearing, fearing that any delay could jeopardise her husband’s health.

The centre’s statement, released after the hearing, reiterated that Wangchuk was receiving “required medical intervention” and that his “vital parameters are stable at present.” However, it admitted that “blood parameters remain marginally altered” because of the physiological stress of sustained fasting, and that a multidisciplinary team would continue close observation.

Beyond the medical debate, the case has reignited discussions about the right to protest, the limits of state intervention, and the balance between public‑health safeguards and individual liberty. As the court deliberates, the activist’s fate hangs in the balance—will he be moved to a private hospital as his wife pleads, or will Safdarjung continue to be his place of care?