"The state's duty to preserve life during an indefinite hunger strike often conflicts with the individual's right to dissent." Discuss with reference to recent Supreme Court and High Court rulings.

An indefinite hunger strike places two constitutional obligations in tension: the state's positive duty under Article 21 to protect life, and the protester's Article 19 freedom to dissent through fasting — a form of protest neither unconstitutional nor barred by any Indian statute.

The state's duty to preserve life

• Courts treat preservation of life as non-negotiable. Hearing the contempt plea over farmer leader Jagjit Singh Dallewal's fast (from November 2024 at Khanauri), a Bench of Justices Surya Kant and Sudhanshu Dhulia repeatedly ordered Punjab to provide medical aid or hospitalise him [1].
• The Court warned that those obstructing medical intervention risked abetment of suicide, converting a moral duty into an enforceable legal one on both State and Union [1].
• In the Sonam Wangchuk matter (fast at Jantar Mantar from June 2026), the Delhi High Court held the "life of every citizen is precious" and directed daily clinical monitoring by government doctors [3].

The competing right to dissent

• Courts have consistently refused to treat fasting as an offence or to end protests by decree; Dallewal was never compelled to abandon his fast, and his agitation concluded only after a high-powered committee engaged the farmers [2].
• Judicial restraint on force-feeding is deliberate. Though the Wangchuk PIL sought it, the Delhi High Court confined itself to monitoring and medically-advised intervention, respecting bodily autonomy — an ethic echoed in Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) [4].

Where the conflict sharpens

• Medical aid without coercion is workable early; as organ damage nears, saving life may require overriding consent.
• Judicial activism frequently substitutes for executive silence, exposing an accountability gap in grievance redressal.

The judiciary has evolved a calibrated middle path: guarantee care, never crush conscience. Sustainably, governments must open structured negotiation channels early, so that dissent need not escalate into self-starvation — honouring both the sanctity of life and the democratic voice Article 21 was written to protect.