Subscribe
Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
Climate activist and innovator Sonam Wangchuk was forcefully removed from Delhi's Jantar Mantar protest site by Delhi Police on Saturday, July 18, and shifted to a government hospital after 21 days of indefinite hunger strike. Police said the decision was based on medical advice and a Delhi High Court order directing that his health be monitored daily and necessary medical intervention be provided if required.
The move triggered protests from Wangchuk's supporters, who accused the police of cracking down on the protest. His partner, Gitanjali J Angmo, also urged authorities not to administer any oral or intravenous treatment without the consent of his family and the doctors who had been monitoring his health.
The developments have raised an important legal question: can the government force-feed someone who refuses food as a form of peaceful protest?
The short answer is that Indian law does not provide a simple yes or no. Courts have consistently recognised hunger strikes as a legitimate form of democratic dissent, while simultaneously holding that the state has a constitutional duty to protect life.
Did the Delhi High Court order Wangchuk to be force-fed?
No. This is an important distinction.
A public interest litigation (PIL) filed before the Delhi High Court had sought urgent medical intervention for Wangchuk, including force-feeding if necessary. However, the court did not direct authorities to force-feed him or order his removal from the protest site.
Instead, a bench of Chief Justice Devendra Kumar Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia directed the Union government and the Delhi government to ensure that Wangchuk's health was monitored daily by government doctors and that any medical intervention considered necessary by doctors be provided. The court observed that "the life of every citizen is precious" and recorded the Union government's assurance that it would comply.
Delhi Police has cited this order, along with medical advice regarding Wangchuk's deteriorating health, to justify shifting him to a government hospital.
Is a hunger strike legal in India?
Yes. No law in India prohibits a person from undertaking a hunger strike.
The Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to assemble peacefully under Article 19(1)(b). Hunger strikes have long been recognised as a form of peaceful political protest, drawing from Mahatma Gandhi's use of fasting during the freedom movement.
Courts have consistently treated hunger strikes as protected forms of dissent, although these rights remain subject to reasonable restrictions in the interests of public order, security and other constitutional grounds.
In 2021, the Madras High Court quashed criminal proceedings against a farmer leader who had participated in a hunger strike, holding that merely sitting on a fast does not amount to attempted suicide.
The Supreme Court has also recognised fasting as a constitutionally accepted form of protest. In its judgement in the Ramlila Maidan Incident case, it noted that hunger strikes derive legitimacy from Gandhi's tradition of satyagraha and cannot be treated as unconstitutional merely because they involve self-denial.
Why does the government intervene?
Because the Constitution protects not only the right to protest but also the right to life.
Article 21 guarantees every person's right to life and personal liberty. Courts have repeatedly interpreted this to mean that the state cannot remain a passive spectator if someone's life is in imminent danger.
The Supreme Court's orders in the 2024 case involving Punjab farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal illustrate this balance.
Dallewal had undertaken an indefinite hunger strike as part of the farmers' protest. The Supreme Court held that it was the "bounden duty" of the Union government and the Punjab government to provide immediate and adequate medical care.
At the same time, the court said authorities should provide medical assistance without forcing him to break his fast unless it became imperative to save his life.
The principle underlying such decisions is often described by lawyers as parens patriae, under which the state assumes the role of guardian when a person's life is at serious risk.
The Delhi High Court's order in Wangchuk's case follows a similar approach: preserve life while avoiding unnecessary interference with the protest itself.
Can the government force-feed a hunger striker?
There is no specific Indian law that automatically allows authorities to force-feed every hunger striker.
Nor has the Supreme Court laid down a blanket rule permitting or prohibiting the force-feeding of a mentally competent adult protesting in a public place.
Instead, each situation depends on factors such as the protester's medical condition, whether they are in state custody, doctors' assessment and, where applicable, court directions.
In Wangchuk's case, neither the Delhi High Court nor the Delhi Police has said that he will be force-fed.
The court directed daily medical monitoring and necessary medical intervention. Police have said he was shifted to the hospital because of his deteriorating health and on medical advice. Whether any treatment beyond monitoring can be administered without Wangchuk's consent remains a complex legal and ethical question.
International medical ethics provide some guidance.
The World Medical Association's Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers states that force-feeding a mentally competent person who voluntarily refuses food is ethically unacceptable. It says physicians should respect an informed refusal of treatment even if that decision could result in death.
This creates a difficult tension between a person's bodily autonomy and the state's responsibility to preserve life.
What have courts and governments done before?
India has dealt with hunger strikes differently depending on the circumstances.
The Supreme Court has consistently encouraged governments to engage with hunger strikers rather than adopt a hostile approach.
In the Ramlila Maidan Incident judgment, the court recorded how then Prime Minister Manmohan Singh wrote to Baba Ramdev in 2011, urging him not to proceed with his proposed fast, while senior Union ministers met him before the protest in an attempt to persuade him through dialogue.
The best-known case involving force-feeding is that of Irom Sharmila, who protested against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act for 16 years. She was repeatedly arrested under the now-defunct offence of attempted suicide under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code and force-fed through a nasogastric tube while in custody.
However, legal experts point out that Sharmila's case arose while she was under state custody, making it different from a public protest such as Wangchuk's.
By contrast, anti-corruption activist Anna Hazare's hunger strikes in 2011 were allowed to continue under medical supervision without compulsory feeding.
Why do hunger strikes continue to matter in India?
Fasting has deep cultural and religious roots in India, but Mahatma Gandhi transformed it into one of the country's most powerful political tools. For Gandhi, fasting was an act of self-suffering intended to awaken the moral conscience of society rather than compel action through violence.
Independent India has continued to witness hunger strikes over issues ranging from linguistic states and land acquisition to corruption, farmers' rights and environmental protection.
Potti Sriramulu's death after a 58-day fast in 1952 led to the creation of Andhra state. Irom Sharmila's prolonged fast became an international symbol of resistance against the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA). Anna Hazare's fast galvanised the anti-corruption movement in 2011.
Yet the method has also drawn criticism.
BR Ambedkar argued in 1949 that once constitutional methods of seeking change were available, fasting unto death and civil disobedience should give way to democratic processes, describing them as the "grammar of anarchy."
Political philosopher Pratap Bhanu Mehta has similarly argued that fasts unto death can become coercive because they exert enormous moral pressure on governments.
Anthropologist Sayantan Saha Roy told the BBC that hunger strikes remain politically potent because the protester's deteriorating body becomes a visible symbol of suffering, compelling both governments and the public to respond.
The Sonam Wangchuk case has once again brought these competing principles into focus. Indian courts have repeatedly held that the right to peaceful protest deserves protection. At the same time, they have insisted that the state cannot stand by if a citizen's life is in imminent danger.
