Supreme Court reiterates state's duty to preserve life of indefinite fast protesters
The Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the state's paternalistic duty to preserve the life of individuals on indefinite fasts, while respecting their right to dissent. This principle was reiterated amidst activist Sonam Wangchuk's ongoing fast, with the Delhi High Court emphasizing the preciousness of human life. Past Supreme Court judgments, such as in the case of Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal and the Ramlila Maidan Incident involving Baba Ramdev, have highlighted the state's responsibility to provide medical aid and engage with protesters, recognizing hunger strikes as a constitutionally accepted form of protest that is neither unconstitutional nor barred by law.
Key Points
- The Supreme Court upholds the state's duty to preserve the life of individuals on indefinite fasts.
- This duty coexists with respecting the protester's right to dissent.
- The Delhi High Court recently underscored the preciousness of human life in the context of Sonam Wangchuk's fast.
- Past judgments, like the Ramlila Maidan Incident, show government engagement with hunger strikers.
- Hunger strikes are recognized as a constitutionally accepted form of protest in India.
Exam Facts
- Activist on fast: Sonam Wangchuk.
- Court's recent observation: Delhi High Court (July 16).
- Past cases cited: Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal, In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident (2011) involving Baba Ramdev.
- Chief Justice of India: Surya Kant (who headed a Bench on Dallewal's case).
Read it. Retain it. Recall it.
Get spaced-repetition flashcards, daily quizzes and offline access — free on Android.