The state's duty to preserve life during an indefinite hunger strike often conflicts with the individual's right to dissent.

Q. The state's duty to preserve life during an indefinite hunger strike often conflicts with the individual's right to dissent. (15 marks, 250-350 words)

Fasting unto death is a Gandhian inheritance that is neither unconstitutional nor barred by any statute in India. Yet an indefinite fast sets the State's positive obligation under Article 21 to protect life against the protester's Article 19 freedom to dissent — a tension Indian courts have lately had to referee.

The State's duty to preserve life - Article 21 casts a positive, non-negotiable obligation on the State to protect the life of every person, including one voluntarily endangering it [3]. - In the Jagjit Singh Dallewal proceedings (2024–25), a Supreme Court Bench headed by Justice Surya Kant held it the "bounden duty" of the Union and Punjab governments to ensure immediate, adequate medical aid to the fasting farmer leader [1]. - The duty was enforced through contempt jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against defaulting state officials [4]. - The Delhi High Court, hearing a PIL on activist Sonam Wangchuk's fast at Jantar Mantar (July 2026), observed that the "life of any citizen is precious" and ordered continuous monitoring by government doctors [2].

The competing right to dissent - Hunger strikes flow from the freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly under Articles 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(b) [3]. - Courts have pointedly refused to order the fast broken, directing aid "without forcing him to break his fast, unless imperative to save life" — preserving bodily autonomy [1]. - Routine force-feeding or removal would convert protest into custody and chill legitimate dissent.

Where the conflict sharpens - Administrative: joint Union–State responsibility (Dallewal) and Delhi's split executive structure complicate coordination [2][1]. - Governance: prolonged official silence pushes the judiciary into an executive role. - Ethical: paternalism versus autonomy, and the risk of medicalising political dissent.

The judiciary has refused a zero-sum choice, protecting the body while leaving the protest intact. The durable answer lies with the executive: time-bound, good-faith engagement with grievances, consent-based medical monitoring, and life-saving intervention only as a last resort. Such calibration honours both Article 21 and the constitutional morality of dissent.

(~320 words)

Sources: 1. Supreme Court of India — orders in the Jagjit Singh Dallewal contempt proceedings (Dec 2024–Jan 2025) — "bounden duty" of Union and Punjab to give medical aid without forcing the fast to be broken 2. High Court of Delhi — PIL on Sonam Wangchuk's indefinite hunger strike (July 2026) — "life of any citizen is precious"; directions for monitoring by government doctors; Centre–Delhi government responses sought 3. The Constitution of India, Legislative Department, Ministry of Law and Justice — Articles 19(1)(a), 19(1)(b) and 21 4. The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 — India Code — contempt jurisdiction used to enforce compliance with judicial directions