Apurb Singha Deb*
Introduction
On the morning of July 18, 2026, Delhi Police admitted Activist Sonam Wangchuk to Hospital after days of his hunger strike. The Police Justified the action, stating that the Delhi High Court had two days earlier ordered that Wangchuk’s health shall be monitored and appropriate medical intervention, based upon doctor’s advise, must be administered. This leads to a broad jurisprudential question: What is the Scope of Hunger Strike under Indian Constitution? Hunger Strike, in Indian Context, particularly highlights the contradiction between two facets of article 21.
Article 21 and the conflict of Bodily Autonomy vs. The State’s Duty to Preserve Life
Article 21 ensures that no individual is deprived of their life or personal liberty. The judicial interpretation of the same has further extended the definition of life to include the right of an individual to live with dignity and to have autonomy over his body. This right therefore allows every citizen of this country to make decisions regarding their bodies on their own, which is inclusive of a refusal of medical treatment.
The Supreme Court in Gian Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1996, while dealing with the constitutionality of Section 309 IPC (attempted suicide) and Section 306 (abetment), overruled P. Rathinam v. Union of India (1994), which had held that the right to live included the right not to live. Gian Kaur held that Article 21 does not include the right to die or the right to be killed, and that the right to die is inherently inconsistent with the right to life, upholding Section 309 and establishing preservation of life to be of paramount state interest.
However, the right to bodily autonomy was reiterated by the Supreme court in Common Cause (A Regd. Society) v. Union of India (2018), where the Constitutional Bench held that the right to die with dignity is an intrinsic part of the right to live with dignity under Article 21, affirming that the right to informed consent and the right to refuse unwanted medical intervention are inclusive of that very right. The Court observed that “Continuing treatment against the wishes of a patient is not only a violation of the principle of informed consent, but also of bodily privacy and bodily integrity that have been recognised as a facet of privacy by this Court.” The court also cited the case of Cruzan v. Director, Mo. Dept. of Health, wherein the US court accepted that a person voluntarily choosing not to undergo a medical treatment cannot be interpreted as an attempt to commit suicide.
The Apex Court in In Re: Ramlila Maidan Incident held that “The threat of going on a hunger strike to personify one’s stand on the issues raised cannot be termed as unconstitutional or barred under any law. It is a form of protest which has been accepted, both historically and legally in our constitutional jurisprudence.” While Article 51A(b) of the Indian Constitution puts upon the citizens the fundamental duty to cherish and follow the noble ideals which inspired the national struggle for freedom. It is essential to note that the mechanism of Hunger Strike was extensively employed during India’s freedom Struggle, particularly by Mahatma Gandhi.
However, there is another aspect of Article 21. State is obligated to safeguard the life of its citizens, as held in S.S. Ahluwalia vs Union Of India & Ors. Delhi High Court’s order also emphasized the same that “life of every citizen is precious and all medical efforts Ought to be made by the Government authorities to save the same.”
Aftermath
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, through its order dated July 16, 2026, in Rakesh Kumar Saini v. Union of India, stated that Wangchuk’s health “shall be regularly monitored on a daily basis by Government Doctors,” and that whatever medical intervention was needed, “depending upon the opinion of the Doctors,” would follow. The Bench recorded this assurance while observing that every citizen’s life is precious and disposed of the petition in those terms.
The July 19 order affirmed the action of admitting the activist in the Hospital. Later, the Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia at the Delhi High Court, however, upon hearing the matter on July 21, ordered Wangchuk’s transfer to Medanta Hospital, the facility his family had asked for from the outset. Holding that this was necessary “in fulfilment of requirements of ensuring his fundamental rights.”
Conclusion
Therefore, Hunger Strike itself presents a unique conflict in India’s rights jurisprudence. One one side, article 21 guarantees right to bodily autonomy, while on the other side obligated the state to preserve life. In such a context, courts must adopt an approach, which is guided by the principles of proportionality, ensuring that life and liberty of citizens is preserved.
* The author is a third-year Law student at the National University of Study and Research in Law, Ranchi. The author may be contacted at apurbsingha.deb@nusrlranchi.ac.in
This blog reflects the personal views of the author and does not necessarily represent the views of The Policy Chronicle.