The forced removal of activist Sonam Wangchuk from the Cockroach Janta Party protest site in central Delhi this week underlined one of democracy's bigger balancing acts - the right to hunger strikes as part of peaceful protests versus the state's obligation to protect lives, if necessary by force-feeding. The question is this - at what point does that obligation kick in?
Indian courts recognise fasting as a valid form of protest, the right to which is guaranteed to by the Constitution. The courts have also acknowledged that a mentally competent individual - informed of the dangers of fasting - can refuse to eat food.
They have also held a hunger strike cannot be seen as a suicide bid; in 2021, the Madras High Court said a farmer protesting the government's (now-scrapped) 'black' farm laws could not be seen as trying to die by suicide. This is an important distinction because it means the state cannot then stop the strike - since suicide is a crime - and force-feed the protester.
But simultaneously, the courts have also held the government responsible for the people's safety.
In February 2013 the Supreme Court ruled: "It is the bounden duty of any State to ensure the lives of its citizens and other persons are at all times protected." The court drew from Article 21 in that instance, which guarantees protection of life, and has been read by the court as requiring the state to act if a citizen's life is in imminent danger.
An inferred additional responsibility, then, is also force-feeding a hunger strike protester if - and this distinction is critical - medical reports indicate a threat to life if fasting were to continue.
Instances like these, i.e., cases where the right to protest and autonomy over one's body - including hunger strikes - clash with the state's duty to protect lives, are a Catch-22 situation.
The courts have said a citizen's right to assembly and protest, peacefully and without arms, is the cornerstone of democracy. And hunger strikes have been seen as valid and protected forms of such protests, though that right, like all others, is subject to reasonable restrictions.
In this case, that would include potential threats to the protester's own life.
The catch is in establishing those 'reasonable restrictions'.
Force-feeding, for example, is neither permitted nor allowed under Indian law.
In the Wangchuk case, as his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, and lawyers have pointed out, forcibly feeding the activist while in hospital would violate his bodily autonomy, particularly since the act of moving him from the protest site does not legally invalidate or end the protest.
But the state is required not to allow Wangchuk to deteriorate to a point where his life is under threat - as was argued in the Delhi High Court plea - meaning it will then force-feed him.
That is the paradox in the Wangchuk case.
