SC judgments say state has a duty preserve life of person on indefinite fast without disrupting right to dissent
The article discusses Supreme Court precedents regarding the state's duty to preserve the life of individuals on hunger strikes. It highlights the government's silence on activist Sonam Wangchuk's ongoing protest.
Why it matters
It examines the constitutional balance between the right to dissent and the state's paternalistic obligation to protect citizen health.
Multiple Supreme Court judgments and orders highlight the state’s paternalistic duty of care to preserve the life of a person on a hunger strike without disrupting his right to dissent.
Yet the government has responded to activist Sonam Wanghuk’s ongoing fasting at Jantar Mantar with silence for the past 19 days even as an alarmed Delhi High Court asserted on July 16 that the “life of any citizen is precious”.
A series of orders of a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant, currently the Chief Justice of India, have similarly stressed the constitutional duty and responsibility of the state to ensure that no harm is caused to the life of a person on an indefinite fast.
Get smarter about the news
Sign up free for a feed built around what you actually care about, Dive Deeper research on any story, and the full text of every article.
Create free accountAlready have an account? Sign in