Sonam Wangchuk| State Can Override Bodily Autonomy If Public Order Is At Stake: SG Tells Delhi HC
The Centre argued before the Delhi High Court that while the right to protest and bodily autonomy are recognised rights, the State cannot remain a silent spectator where a protester’s deteriorating health could trigger law and order consequences
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued before the Delhi High Court that the State may intervene despite an individual’s bodily autonomy if deteriorating health poses a potential law and order concern
The Central Government on Monday told the Delhi High Court that an individual’s right to bodily autonomy and refusal of medical treatment cannot be viewed in isolation where the State’s constitutional obligation to protect life and maintain public order is engaged.
Appearing before a Division Bench comprisingChief Justice Devendra Kumar UpadhyayaandJustice Tejas Karia,Solicitor General Tushar Mehtaopposed the plea filed byDr. Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Sonam Wangchuk, challenging the refusal to shift Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice.
Senior AdvocateAkhil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, had argued that Wangchuk was conscious, mentally competent, not under arrest or detention, and therefore entitled to decide whether to continue treatment and where to receive it. Relying on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Common Cause, Sibal submitted that the right to refuse medical treatment flowed from bodily autonomy and informed consent.
‘Right Cannot be viewed in Isolation’: SG
Countering the submissions, Mehta argued that constitutional rights must be balanced against corresponding constitutional duties cast upon the State.
“The life of everyone, including the petitioner’s husband, is precious and needs to be protected,” Mehta submitted.
He contended that although the right to protest is a fundamental right, it is not absolute when the protester’s medical condition reaches a stage where public interest and public order become relevant considerations.
“The right to protest is fundamental, but the State cannot ignore a situation where a protester’s declining health may trigger law and order issues,” Mehta argued.
According to the Solicitor General, the doctrine of bodily autonomy cannot be applied in a manner that completely disables the State from discharging its constitutional obligation to preserve life.
He submitted that the right to refuse treatment cannot be viewed in isolation when public interest and the State’s duty to protect life are engaged.
State defends Medical Intervention
Seeking to allay apprehensions regarding Wangchuk’s medical treatment, Mehta informed the Court that the blood sample in question had been examined independently by both Safdarjung Hospital and AIIMS, apart from a private laboratory, to address concerns raised by the petitioner regarding the reliability of medical reports.
Reading from the latest medical bulletin, the Solicitor General submitted that Wangchuk remained conscious and haemodynamically stable, with normal pulse, blood pressure and oxygen saturation, but was exhibiting clinical signs of dehydration following prolonged fasting.
He further informed the Court that doctors from AIIMS had concurred with the treating team’s assessment that immediate oral or intravenous fluids and electrolyte therapy were medically indicated, and that an AIIMS doctor had joined the treating team for continuous monitoring.
According to the medical bulletin, Wangchuk had declined intravenous fluids, oral rehydration solution and medication despite repeated counselling, while the family had also not consented to the recommended medical intervention.
Court Seeks Complete Medical Picture
During the hearing, the Bench observed that its concern was “to save his life first” and questioned whether the issue could be reduced merely to potassium levels, pointing out that one of the reports also reflected elevated creatinine levels indicating possible kidney-related stress.
The Court ultimately directed the Delhi Government to place on record all pathological reports from Safdarjung Hospital, AIIMS and the petitioner’s private laboratory, while requesting the AIIMS in-charge Director to personally assist the Court at the next hearing.
The Bench also recorded that no forced medical intervention had been undertaken so far and directed that the existing position continue until the matter is taken up again.
The matter will now be heard on today,i.e. July 21 at 12:30 PM.
Monday morning, the Court had agreedto hear an appeal filed by Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, challenging a Single Judge’s refusal to shift him from Safdarjung Hospital to a private hospital of his choice.
What happened before the Single Judge bench
In special Sunday hearing, Justice Mini Pushkarna had declined to interfere with the continued treatment of Sonam Wangchuk at Safdarjung Hospital, holding that his transfer to the government hospital owing to his deteriorating medical condition “cannot be termed arbitrary” and that neither his bodily autonomy nor his right to consent was being violated.
She passed the order while hearing a plea filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, seeking his transfer from Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta Hospital, alleging that his continued confinement at the government hospital was not justified.
Dictating the order in open court, Justice Pushkarna observed that Wangchuk had been on a hunger strike for 17-18 days and noted the Court’s division bench’s order dated July 16 directingauthorities to preserve his health.
In a related news, the Court on July 20, had refused urgent listing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a declaration that the Delhi Police acted illegally by removing Sonam Wangchuk from the protest site and shifting him to a hospital.
Wangchuk has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since June 28 in support of Cockroach Janta party founding president Abhijit Dipke’s appeals for resignation of the Union Education minister. The protestors who have gathered at Jantar Mantar include politicians and student led organisations such as SFI and AISF. It is also alleged that the protests are being backed by political parties such as the Aam Aadmi Party, with Arvind Kejriwal recently expressing support
Case Title: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia
