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.
The framing emphasizes the government's 'silence' and 'paternalistic duty,' which critiques current executive inaction.
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