A plea has been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking urgent medical intervention for education reformist and climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, whose indefinite hunger strike at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar entered its 18th day.
The petition, filed by activist lawyer Rakesh Kumar Saini, has urged the Centre and Delhi government to shift Wangchuk to a government hospital and provide necessary medical support, including force-feeding if required, citing concerns over his deteriorating health.
Organisers claim that Wangchuk has lost around 8.25 kg since beginning his fast on June 28. The petitioner argued that while peaceful protest is a democratic right, the State also has a responsibility to protect citizens’ lives.
Wangchuk, however, continues his fast, demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, including NEET, and seeking the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan. Several public figures have appealed to him to end the hunger strike while supporting the concerns he has raised.
PIL Raises Concerns Over Health
The petition before the Delhi High Court claims that Sonam Wangchuk’s health condition has worsened significantly after 18 days of fasting and urges authorities to act before the situation becomes critical. The plea states that Wangchuk could face a serious threat to his life if the hunger strike continues without medical intervention.
Filed by activist lawyer Rakesh Kumar Saini, the petition alleges that the government has failed in its “duty of care” towards the activist by not taking adequate steps despite concerns over his declining health. It argues that the State cannot remain a silent observer when a person’s life is allegedly at risk.
The petitioner has requested the court to direct authorities to admit Wangchuk to a government hospital and provide essential nutrients, vitamins and minerals through medical support. The plea also argued that intervention may be required even against Wangchuk’s wishes, stating that protecting human life should remain the priority.
The petition referred to provisions related to abetment of suicide under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, arguing that authorities have a constitutional responsibility to prevent situations where a person’s life may be endangered.
Organisers supporting Wangchuk’s protest have said that he has lost around 8.25 kg since starting his fast. Health updates shared from the protest site have raised concerns about weakness, falling energy levels and other effects associated with prolonged fasting.
Despite these concerns, Wangchuk has continued his protest, maintaining that the issues raised by the movement require attention and dialogue rather than being ignored.
Why Wangchuk Began His Hunger Strike
Sonam Wangchuk began his indefinite hunger strike on June 28 at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar after joining protests organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP). The movement has been demanding accountability over alleged irregularities in competitive examinations, including NEET, and has called for the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan.
The broader protest emerged amid concerns raised by students and activists regarding examination processes, alleged paper leaks and challenges faced by candidates appearing for major competitive exams.
Wangchuk, widely known for his work in education reform, sustainable development and climate activism, joined the protest to highlight what he described as concerns affecting young students and the credibility of examination systems.
The hunger strike has since drawn attention from political leaders, civil society members and public figures. While some have supported the concerns raised by Wangchuk and the protesters, they have also urged him to reconsider continuing the fast due to health risks.
Author Arundhati Roy, actors Naseeruddin Shah and Ratna Pathak Shah, economist Jayati Ghosh and other public figures have appealed to Wangchuk to end his hunger strike while expressing solidarity with the issues behind his protest.
The Debate Around Hunger Strikes
The Delhi High Court plea has brought renewed attention to the long-standing debate between an individual’s right to protest and the State’s responsibility to protect life.
Hunger strikes have historically been used as a form of peaceful resistance, allowing individuals to draw attention to social and political concerns. Supporters view them as a powerful expression of democratic participation, especially when conventional channels fail to address grievances.
However, prolonged hunger strikes often create difficult questions for governments and courts. While individuals have the right to make choices about their own bodies, authorities are also expected to act when there is a possibility of serious harm.
The issue of force-feeding has remained controversial globally, with debates centred around medical ethics, personal autonomy and the limits of State intervention. Critics argue that forced treatment can violate an individual’s consent, while others believe governments have a duty to prevent avoidable loss of life.
The current petition before the Delhi High Court reflects this complex balance — whether authorities should respect Wangchuk’s decision to continue his protest or intervene to protect his health.
The plea had sought urgent listing before the Delhi High Court. However, reports indicated uncertainty over the hearing due to a Delhi High Court Bar Association call for abstention from work on July 15 over a separate issue concerning the proposed increase in pecuniary jurisdiction limits for district courts.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
The ongoing hunger strike by Sonam Wangchuk highlights the importance of dialogue in resolving disagreements within a democracy. Peaceful protests have historically played a significant role in bringing public attention to issues affecting communities, particularly when citizens feel unheard.
At the same time, every life carries immense value, and concerns over an individual’s deteriorating health cannot be ignored. A compassionate approach requires balancing the right to peaceful expression with the responsibility to protect human dignity and wellbeing.
Also read: Trump’s New Hormuz Move: US to Charge 20% Cargo Fee on Ships Using Strait of Hormuz
