Sonam Wangchuk's Hunger Strike Reignites Legal Debate on State Intervention

Climate activist and innovator Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike has renewed debate around how Indian courts handle cases involving prolonged fasting as a form of protest. The legal question centers on whether the State has the authority to intervene when an individual voluntarily refuses food, even at risk to their own life. Courts have historically struggled to balance the right to personal autonomy against the constitutional and moral duty to preserve human life. Past judicial precedents have produced varied outcomes, with some courts ordering force-feeding while others have upheld individual choice. Wangchuk's case has once again brought this unresolved tension in Indian law into sharp public focus.