SC affirms duty to save hunger strikers' lives, but government stays silent on activist Sonam Wanghuk
Multiple Supreme Court judgments have reaffirmed the state's constitutional duty to preserve the life of a person on an indefinite fast without infringing on their right to dissent, yet the government has remained silent for 19 days as activist Sonam Wanghuk continues his hunger strike at Jantar Mantar.
The Delhi High Court, alarmed by the situation, asserted on July 16 that 'the life of any citizen is precious.' The Supreme Court, in a series of orders by a Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant (now Chief Justice of India), has similarly stressed the state's responsibility to prevent harm to a person on an indefinite fast.
These orders were passed during periodic hearings in the case of Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, who went on a hunger strike against the controversial farm laws in 2024. The septuagenarian's protest had crossed 20 days at that time. The court highlighted that the Union of India and the State of Punjab must consider the age, medical health, and stature of Mr. Dallewal as a prominent citizen.
The Bench held that it was the 'bounden duty of the State of Punjab, the Union of India and other stakeholders to take all necessary measures to provide immediate adequate medical aid to Mr. Jagjit Singh Dallewal without forcing him to break his fast unless it is imperative to do so to save his life.'
In the suo motu case 'In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident,' the Supreme Court noted instances where the United Progressive Alliance government reached out to Baba Ramdev to dissuade him from a hunger strike against corruption in 2011. The judgment recorded that then Prime Minister Dr. Manmohan Singh went the 'extra mile' to persuade Baba Ramdev. On May 4, 2011, Baba Ramdev wrote to the Prime Minister about his intention to fast; the Prime Minister responded on May 19, 2011, assuring him of the government's commitment against corruption and asking him to drop the idea of a hunger strike.
The same judgment also described how four senior ministers met Baba Ramdev at the airport on June 1, 2011, and later at The Claridges hotel to convince him not to fast.
The Supreme Court has consistently discouraged the Executive from taking a hostile view of those who express dissent through fasting. The court held that the state cannot disrupt the right of expression unless there is a 'genuine threat or reasonable bias of communal disharmony, social disorder and public tranquility.' Hunger strikes are neither unconstitutional nor prohibited by law. An indefinite fast cannot be perceived as a threat to public order.
'It is a form of protest which has been accepted, both historically and legally in our constitutional jurisprudence… It draws its source from the Satyagraha of Mahatma Gandhi,' the Supreme Court said, emphasising the state's duty to reach out and save a life.
