Sonam Wangchuk’s hunger strike has sparked debate regarding its legality within the framework of Indian law. Hunger strikes and similar protests, like jal satyagrahas, have been long-standing methods of political dissent in India. Protesters often risk their health to raise awareness about issues they believe are being neglected by the government. Such acts of defiance, sometimes leading to extreme measures, bring forth questions about citizen rights and governmental responsibilities.

Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) has come under scrutiny in the context of Wangchuk’s ongoing protest. Unlike previous legislation, this section categorically criminalises attempted suicide when it is done to compel a public servant to perform certain duties or abstain from actions. This clause presents a unique challenge to the traditional understanding of hunger strikes as legitimate forms of political expression.

The police intervened in Wangchuk’s case, reportedly in response to directives from the Delhi High Court. His transport to Safdarjung Hospital has raised allegations of improper procedure, as neither his family nor his legal representatives were shown formal documentation for his detainment.

Delhi High Court’s Response

The Delhi High Court issued an order on July 16, emphasising the importance of preserving life while not explicitly banning Wangchuk’s protest. The court directed daily health monitoring and ordered that necessary medical interventions be made should his condition deteriorate. The High Court’s order focuses on the individual’s right to live, urging the government to take all appropriate medical measures.

However, the ruling did not address whether Wangchuk’s right to protest would be obstructed, leaving in question how the state balances citizen rights with the duty to safeguard life. This raises broader implications regarding governmental intervention during peaceful protests, particularly in the context of hunger strikes.

Indian jurisprudence has generally recognised hunger strikes as a permissible form of dissent. This was established in several key cases, including the Ramlila Maidan case in 2012, where it was declared that the threat of hunger strikes falls within constitutional rights. The Supreme Court reiterated the importance of peaceful protests, asserting that while regulations may apply, outright prohibition is not warranted.

Legal Perspectives on Current Events

Various legal experts have begun to discuss the implications of Wangchuk’s hospitalisation. Senior advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan has raised questions about the legality of the measures taken against Wangchuk, stating that no first information report (FIR) was filed against him. He questioned the rationale behind categorising a fast as an attempt to end one’s life, suggesting that the law should differentiate between life-threatening instances and peaceful protests.

Additionally, former Additional Solicitor General Sidharth Luthra expressed concerns regarding the broader implications for citizen rights. He argued that the underlying issues prompting such protests should be addressed rather than merely focusing on health concerns. He stated that awareness of dissent is crucial for a society that values freedom of expression.

Further discussions emerged concerning the Delhi High Court’s recent proceedings related to Wangchuk’s hospitalisation. A special bench convened to hear his family’s petition and highlighted that he was not being detained legally. Though the state defended its actions based on health considerations, the court’s reluctance to clarify Wangchuk’s rights to choose his medical care pressed deeper constitutional questions about individual autonomy against state intervention.

Long or Short, get news the way you like. No ads. No redirections. Download Newspin and Stay Alert, The CSR Journal Mobile app, for fast, crisp, clean updates!

App Store –  https://apps.apple.com/in/app/newspin/id6746449540 

Google Play Store – https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.inventifweb.newspin&pcampaignid=web_share