On July 19, 2026, the Delhi High Court rejected a petition seeking the release of activist Sonam Wangchuk from Safdarjung Hospital in New Delhi. Wangchuk had been forcibly taken to the government-run hospital the day before, after more than three weeks on hunger strike. Justice Mini Pushkarna declined to order his immediate discharge and scheduled the next hearing for Friday, July 24, 2026. The petition was filed as a Public Interest Litigation — a legal mechanism in India that allows citizens to seek judicial intervention on matters of public concern — by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo, under case number 9498/2026. It also asked for his transfer to a private hospital.

Wangchuk, 59, was seized by police on July 18 at Jantar Mantar, the designated protest site in central New Delhi. He had been on hunger strike there since June 28 in solidarity with the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest movement. Dozens of officers removed him from the site and took him to Safdarjung Hospital.

The CJP movement emerged in May 2026 after Chief Justice of India Surya Kant likened some unemployed young people to "cockroaches" during a court remark. The movement's central demand is the resignation of Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. The protests have gained momentum against the backdrop of a corruption scandal in India's national examination system: over 2.2 million aspiring doctors were forced to retake the medical entrance exam after the original May 2026 test was voided due to leaked questions.

Justice Pushkarna stated that doctors had administered only oral fluids and supplements with Wangchuk's consent, and that his bodily autonomy — the legal right to make decisions about one's own body — was not being violated. The court also said no force was used in moving him to Safdarjung Hospital, and that Indian authorities were justified in relocating him because he had not checked himself in voluntarily.

Angmo said on the social platform X that the hospital refused to discharge Wangchuk or allow his transfer to a private facility. She reported that roughly 30 police officers were stationed on their floor, with more than 100 across the hospital. Safdarjung Hospital reported that Wangchuk's vital signs were stable, but his blood parameters remained "marginally altered," requiring continued medical treatment and round-the-clock monitoring.

Wangchuk had described the planned July 20 Parliament march as "India's second freedom movement." Organized by the CJP movement, the march is intended to increase pressure on the government over the examination scandal and the broader issues of youth unemployment and institutional accountability.

The Delhi High Court had earlier directed daily medical monitoring of Wangchuk but had not itself ordered that he be moved to the hospital. That decision was made by authorities who determined his prolonged hunger strike, now in its fourth week, warranted medical intervention.

The broader context here is one of escalating tension between the Indian state and a protest movement that has drawn in prominent public figures like Wangchuk, whose hunger strike at Jantar Mantar brought national visibility to the CJP cause. The court's ruling effectively keeps Wangchuk in state custody at a government hospital during the lead-up to the July 20 Parliament march, raising questions about the state's authority to compel medical treatment of a protester who has not agreed to hospitalization. Justice Pushkarna's finding that bodily autonomy was not violated rests on a narrow distinction: oral fluids and supplements given with consent, as opposed to more invasive measures such as forced feeding through a nasogastric tube. Should Wangchuk's condition worsen, that distinction may face a real test.

The case also sits at the intersection of two politically charged issues: a judiciary already under scrutiny after the Chief Justice's remarks that gave rise to the CJP movement, and an examination corruption scandal that has directly affected millions of aspiring students. The July 24 hearing will provide the next legal checkpoint, but the July 20 march may shape the public and political trajectory of the movement well before the court reconvenes.