Supreme Court verdicts say the state must preserve life during an indefinite hunger strike
Supreme Court jurisprudence treats an indefinite hunger strike as protected protest, while the State retains a duty to protect life and provide medical care when health is at risk.
- The Supreme Court of India has treated hunger strikes as a recognised form of protest while requiring the State to protect life when a fast becomes medically dangerous.
- A bench led by Justice Surya Kant said authorities must consider age, medical condition, and status, and must provide immediate and adequate medical assistance.
- The Supreme Court narrated that the Union government tried to dissuade Baba Ramdev from a hunger strike through persuasion and assurances rather than coercion.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly treated an indefinite hunger strike as a protected form of protest, but it has also said that the State has a duty to preserve the life of the person on fast when health is at risk. The current debate is linked to activist Sonam Wangchuk’s fast at Jantar Mantar and to the broader question of how the State should respond to protest without treating dissent as a security problem.
What happened now
The current discussion refers to judicial concern over Sonam Wangchuk’s continuing fast at Jantar Mantar and to the view that the government response has been quiet despite the Court’s emphasis that every citizen’s life is precious. The legal issue is not whether protest can be stopped simply because it is inconvenient, but whether the State can remain passive when a fast creates a real risk to life.
UPSC may ask how constitutional protection for peaceful protest coexists with the State’s duty to protect life, or may test the Supreme Court’s approach to public order, medical intervention, and the limits of coercive response during a hunger strike.
Related dispatches
