The Supreme Court has reiterated that the state must ensure medical safety for citizens on hunger strike. This comes amid ongoing concerns regarding activist Sonam Wangchuk’s 19-day fast at Jantar Mantar and the current government's lack of engagement.
The Supreme Court of India has once again highlighted the constitutional duty of the state to protect the lives of citizens undertaking hunger strikes. While affirming the democratic right to dissent, the judiciary has specified that the government is responsible for providing necessary medical care and monitoring to those protesting, without necessarily forcing an end to their fast unless life is at immediate risk.
Court Observations on Citizen Safety
On July 16, 2026, the Delhi High Court expressed serious concern regarding the ongoing protest at Jantar Mantar, emphasizing that the life of any citizen is precious. This judicial intervention follows the 19-day fast led by activist Sonam Wangchuk. The legal perspective, established through various precedents, suggests that the state should adopt a collaborative approach rather than a confrontational one when dealing with individuals exercising their right to protest through fasting.
Historical Precedents of Government Engagement
Past judicial records demonstrate that the state has previously played a proactive role in engaging with prominent figures during their protests. For instance, in the 'In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident' case, the court documented instances where senior government officials held direct dialogues with protestors to resolve grievances. During a 2011 hunger strike, members of the central government engaged with the protest leadership to find a resolution, illustrating a historical pattern of dialogue intended to prevent the health of a citizen from deteriorating during a public demonstration.
Judicial Guidance on Dissent
In late 2024, a bench led by Justice Surya Kant provided specific directions during protests by farmer leaders. The court mandated that authorities must ensure the availability of medical aid for protestors who have been fasting for extended periods, such as those exceeding 20 days. These rulings underline the position that hunger strikes, as a form of expression, are not to be viewed as threats to public order by default. The judiciary maintains that the state's primary role in such scenarios is to safeguard the well-being of the individual while balancing the broader public interest. The focus remains on the government’s obligation to prioritize health and life while managing sensitive public demonstrations.