"Life of any citizen is precious and all efforts ought to be made by government authorities to save the same."
That observation by the Delhi High Court has reignited a constitutional question India has grappled with for decades. Can Sonam Wangchuk be force-fed?
The question arose after climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk was shifted to Delhi's Safdarjung Hospital following 21 days on an indefinite hunger strike.
A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) had sought urgent medical intervention, including force-feeding, arguing that his health had deteriorated significantly.
The High Court, however, did not order force-feeding.
Instead, it directed daily medical monitoring and said that any medical intervention should be guided by doctors if Wangchuk's condition required it.
The court sought to protect Wangchuk's health without laying down a blanket rule on whether a mentally competent hunger striker can be force-fed.
So, what does Indian law actually say?
Follow us for all live updates
Why has this question come up?
Wangchuk began his indefinite hunger strike in solidarity with the youth-led Cockroach Janata Party, which is demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over the alleged NEET examination paper leak and broader reforms to India's examination system.
As his fast entered its third week, concerns over his health intensified.
A PIL filed before the Delhi High Court urged authorities to shift him to hospital and, if necessary, administer medical treatment to preserve his life.
The High Court acknowledged the seriousness of the situation but stopped short of directing force-feeding.
Instead, it ordered daily health monitoring and recorded the government's assurance that doctors would provide any medical intervention they considered necessary if Wangchuk's condition deteriorated.
He was subsequently shifted to Safdarjung Hospital.
The court recognised the need to safeguard Wangchuk's health without expressly authorising force-feeding.
ALSO READ: From Ladakh To Delhi: Every Time Sonam Wangchuk Went On Hunger Strike And What Happened Next
Is there a law that allows authorities to force-feed a hunger striker?
There is no Indian law that specifically authorises or prohibits the force-feeding of a mentally competent adult on a political hunger strike.
Instead, courts have generally sought to balance competing constitutional principles.
One is the individual's right to life and personal liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution, which the Supreme Court has interpreted in several judgments to include bodily integrity and personal autonomy.
The other is the State's interest in preserving life and maintaining public order when authorities become aware that a person's health is at serious risk.
When these principles collide, there is no automatic legal rule.
Instead, courts may consider factors such as the person's medical condition, whether they have the capacity to make informed decisions and the circumstances of the protest.
That is why the Delhi High Court did not issue a blanket direction ordering Wangchuk to be force-fed.
Instead, it left any treatment decisions to doctors while ensuring his condition would be monitored closely.
Why was Irom Sharmila force-fed for 16 years?
For many Indians, the immediate comparison is Irom Sharmila.
Known as the "Iron Lady of Manipur", Sharmila began an indefinite hunger strike in November 2000 demanding the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA) after the Malom killings.
Within days, she was arrested under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code, which at the time made attempting suicide a criminal offence.
Because she remained in state custody after repeated arrests, authorities repeatedly kept her alive through a nasogastric feeding tube.
She was released after each period of detention, resumed her fast and was arrested again.
This cycle continued for nearly 16 years until she ended her fast in 2016.
However, Sharmila's case should not be treated as a direct legal precedent for every hunger strike today.
There are two important reasons.
First, she remained in custody after repeated arrests under the then-operative suicide law.
Second, the legal landscape has changed significantly since then.
The Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 created a presumption that a person attempting suicide is under severe stress and should receive care and rehabilitation rather than criminal punishment.
Although Section 309 technically remains on the statute book, its application has been significantly limited after the 2017 law.
Sharmila's case reflected a unique combination of judicial custody, the then-operative suicide law and administrative decisions rather than a general legal rule applicable to every hunger strike.
Even so, it remains India's best-known example of the State intervening to keep a hunger striker alive.
ALSO WATCH: Sonam Wangchuk finally speaks on his hunger strike
Is a hunger strike the same as attempting suicide?
A hunger strike is generally understood as a form of political or social protest in which a person voluntarily refuses food to draw attention to a cause or demand action from the authorities.
Its declared objective is generally to persuade the government or the public rather than to end one's life.
This distinction has long been recognised in India.
Hunger strikes have been used by figures including Mahatma Gandhi, Potti Sriramulu, Anna Hazare and Irom Sharmila to press for political or social change.
Legally, however, the issue is more complicated.
Before the Mental Healthcare Act came into force, a prolonged hunger strike could result in prosecution under Section 309 of the Indian Penal Code.
Today, Section 115 of the Mental Healthcare Act creates a presumption that a person attempting suicide is under severe stress and should receive care, treatment and rehabilitation rather than punishment.
That does not mean every hunger strike is treated as an attempt at suicide.
Whether the law applies depends on the facts, including the person's intent, mental capacity and the circumstances of the protest.
In Wangchuk's case, there has been no suggestion by the Delhi High Court that he attempted suicide.
The proceedings have instead focused on protecting his health while respecting the nature of his protest.
ALSO WATCH: Abhijeet Dipke's desperate plea to the Delhi Police at Cockroach Janta Party protest
Is a hunger strike the same as blackmailing the government?
Legally, no.
Politically and morally, opinions differ.
Some critics describe indefinite hunger strikes as a form of moral pressure on governments.
Supporters argue they are among the most peaceful forms of democratic protest.
Indian law does not describe a hunger strike as "blackmail".
The Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, however, separately creates an offence where a person attempts suicide with the intention of compelling or preventing a public servant from exercising lawful powers.
Whether that provision applies depends entirely on the facts of a particular case.
A peaceful political hunger strike does not automatically fall within this offence simply because it seeks government action.
There is no indication that Sonam Wangchuk has been accused or charged under this provision.
ALSO WATCH: What 20 Days of Cockroach Janta Party Protest Really Look Like
What do medical ethics say about force-feeding?
The legal position is only one part of the debate.
Doctors are also guided by medical ethics.
The World Medical Association's Declaration of Malta on Hunger Strikers states that force-feeding a mentally competent adult who has made an informed decision to refuse food is ethically unacceptable.
Doctors are expected to explain the medical risks, continue providing care and regularly assess whether the individual still has the capacity to make informed decisions.
The declaration also makes an important distinction.
If a hunger striker loses the capacity to make informed decisions, doctors may consider treatment in accordance with Indian law, accepted medical practice and the patient's best interests.
Although the declaration is not legally binding in India, it remains one of the world's most widely cited ethical standards on the treatment of hunger strikers.
ALSO READ: Inside Abhijit Dipke's Cockroach Janata Party Protest
So, can Sonam Wangchuk be force-fed?
There is no simple yes or no answer.
As of publication, there is no court order directing that Sonam Wangchuk be force-fed.
More broadly, Indian law does not lay down a blanket rule either permitting or prohibiting the force-feeding of a mentally competent adult on a political hunger strike.
Instead, each case turns on its own facts, including:
the person's medical condition;
whether they have the capacity to make informed decisions;
the circumstances of the protest; and
any directions issued by the courts.
That is why the Delhi High Court chose not to order force-feeding.
Instead, it required daily medical monitoring while leaving any treatment decisions to doctors based on Wangchuk's condition.
The case illustrates an unresolved constitutional question: how should the law balance an individual's right to protest with the State's interest in preserving life?
ALSO READ: Who Is Abhijit Dipke? The Brain Behind The Cockroach Janta Party Movement
ALSO WATCH: Brut speaks to the founder of the Cockroach Janta Party
ALSO WATCH: Roadies meets Cockroach Janta Party
