Delhi High Court Seeks Centre’s Response on Plea for Urgent Medical Intervention in Sonam Wangchuk Hunger Strike
The Delhi High Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Central Government and the Delhi Government on a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking immediate medical intervention for climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar. Taking note of the urgency highlighted by the petitioner, the court issued notices to the authorities and listed the matter for further consideration.
The PIL claims that Wangchuk’s health has deteriorated significantly after more than two weeks of fasting. According to the petition, he has reportedly lost around 8.5 kilograms and doctors have warned that his condition could become life-threatening within the next two days if urgent medical care is not provided. On this basis, the petitioner has sought directions to shift Wangchuk to a government hospital and, if medically necessary, administer nutrition through “force-feeding” or other life-saving interventions.
Filed by advocate Rakesh Kumar Saini, the petition argues that while peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right, the State also has a constitutional obligation to protect the life of every citizen under Article 21 of the Constitution. It contends that allowing a protester to die due to prolonged starvation without timely intervention would amount to a failure of the State’s constitutional responsibilities.
During the hearing, the High Court treated the matter as urgent and sought explanations from both governments regarding the medical assistance being extended to Wangchuk and the steps taken to safeguard his health. The court did not pass any immediate direction ordering force-feeding but called for the authorities’ responses before deciding the course of action.
Wangchuk has been staging the hunger strike since June 28 at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar in support of his campaign on public issues. His prolonged fast has drawn support from civil society groups, environmental activists and public personalities, many of whom have appealed to him to end the hunger strike while continuing his advocacy through other democratic means.
The case has also raised important legal and ethical questions concerning the balance between an individual’s autonomy during a voluntary hunger strike and the State’s duty to preserve life. Courts in India have previously grappled with similar issues involving fasting protesters and prisoners, where judicial intervention often turns on medical evidence, the voluntariness of the fast and the immediacy of the threat to life. The Delhi High Court’s eventual decision is expected to clarify the extent of governmental responsibility in such situations while addressing the immediate concerns surrounding Wangchuk’s health.
