"Judicial intervention often substitutes for administrative silence in protecting protestors' lives." Critically analyse with recent examples.

Hunger strikes are neither unconstitutional nor barred by any Indian statute [2]. Yet when a fast turns life-threatening, it is increasingly the courts — not the executive — that invoke the State's duty under Article 21 to preserve life, revealing a real accountability gap.

How courts have filled the vacuum

• Dallewal case (2024-25): the Supreme Court held it the "bounden duty" of Punjab, the Union and other stakeholders to provide immediate medical aid to the fasting farmer leader without forcing him to break his fast unless imperative to save life [3].
• Enforcement came through contempt and compliance hearings, with the Court setting deadlines for a reluctant state government [4] — courts effectively supervising day-to-day administration.
• Wangchuk case (2026): with the Centre silent through 19 days of fasting at Jantar Mantar, the Delhi High Court, holding "every life is precious," ordered daily clinical monitoring by government doctors and immediate intervention if needed [1].

Why this substitution is problematic

• Doctrinally sound, institutionally weak: courts apply parens patriae [3], but a bench cannot run a hospital roster; execution still rests with the same silent administration.
• Episodic, not systemic: relief is case-by-case, triggered by a PIL — protestors without litigants get nothing.
• Autonomy risk: pleas seeking force-feeding push courts toward coercion; both benches wisely refused, protecting dissent under Article 19 alongside life [1][2].
• Blurs separation of powers and lets the executive outsource a political decision to the judiciary.

The other side

• Judicial oversight is legitimate constitutional review, not overreach, where inaction imperils life; it also preserved the protestor's right to continue peaceful protest while hospitalised [3].

Judicial intervention is thus a necessary corrective, not a substitute for governance. The durable answer lies in executive protocols — mandatory medical monitoring, and structured dialogue with protestors — so that the administration acts before a court must, honouring both the right to life and the right to dissent.