Right to life vs right to protest: The legal conflict at Jantar Mantar

On the morning of July 18, 2026, the Delhi Police conducted an early morning operation to pick up Sonam Wangchuk from the protest site at Jantar Mantar.

He had been on an indefinite hunger strike for 21 days, and his health had severely deteriorated due to prolonged fasting. The police entered the barricaded area, placed him in an ambulance, and shifted him to Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi, for essential medical care.

A key factor behind the timing of the police action was a major upcoming event. The Monsoon Session of Parliament was scheduled to begin on July 20, 2026. On that exact same day, the organizers had planned a massive “Chalo Sansad” (March to Parliament). Authorities stepped in to clear the area in advance to manage security and prevent the protest from spreading.

According to the law enforcement agency, the action taken by the Delhi Police was based on a direct intervention by the judiciary. The activist was shifted to the hospital in compliance with recent orders issued by the Delhi High Court and acted on expert medical advice to safeguard his life. The High Court had stepped in after a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed on July 14, 2026. Recognizing that the activist had lost significant weight and faced severe health risks, the petitioner moved the court to seek urgent medical intervention and judicial protection for his life.

The High Court heard the petition and officially disposed of it on July 16, 2026. While closing the matter under case number W.P.(C) 9498/2026, the judges noted the government’s assurance that a formalized mechanism of daily monitoring by government doctors was in place. To ensure absolute safety, the High Court explicitly recorded the framework in its final order:

“We only observe that the life of every citizen is precious and all medical efforts ought to be made by the Government authorities to save the same. We appreciate the stance taken by the learned Solicitor General and, accordingly, direct that the medical condition of Shri Sonam Wangchuk shall, clinically and otherwise, be regularly monitored on a daily basis and, depending on the opinion of the doctors, whatever medical intervention is required to check his deteriorating health condition, shall also be taken.”

The core constitutional provision the High Court was dealing with-and enforcing-in this matter was Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty.

While the text of the order does not explicitly name the article, the court’s operative reasoning directly derives from it. The Bench’s foundational premise that the life of every citizen is precious is the exact legal phrasing used by courts in the country to enforce the State’s constitutional obligations.

Under Indian jurisprudence, the Right to Life imposes a positive duty on the State to safeguard human life, provide essential medical care, and prevent a citizen from dying due to starvation or health failure, even during a voluntary hunger strike.

To trigger this protection, the petitioner moved the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, which empowers High Courts to issue writs, orders, or directions to the Government for the enforcement of fundamental rights.

The High Court used this constitutional tool to bypass standard administrative delays and directly ordered the Central and Delhi Governments to initiate daily medical monitoring.

Despite the judicial backing, the subsequent police action has highlighted a direct clash between different constitutional principles. While the State acted under the mandate of protecting life, supporters viewed the police response as a severe restriction on democratic rights.

The entire controversy centers on how both sides interpret the law regarding public protests versus personal liberty.

Supporters, family members, and legal aides argue that the police action was a violation of fundamental rights. They contend that a peaceful hunger strike is a protected form of democratic expression under the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully.

Furthermore, they argue that removing an individual and attempting to administer medical care without the express consent of the person or their family directly infringes upon personal liberty.

Activists and organisers point out a distinct gap between the High Court’s text and the actual police operation. They emphasize that the High Court did not explicitly order the police to clear the protest site or forcefully evict the organisers.

From their perspective, the administration used the court’s medical welfare directives merely as a legal shield to dismantle a peaceful demonstration.

The dispute over personal liberty has now moved from the protest site to the hospital ward. After being admitted to Safdarjung Hospital, the Ladakh-based activist refused to accept intravenous fluids or medical treatment. At the same time, his family has demanded that the hospital share his official medical reports with full transparency.

In contrast, the Delhi Police and state authorities justify the intervention by pointing to their legal obligations. The High Court had explicitly ruled that whatever medical intervention was required to check his deteriorating health condition must be taken based on the evaluation of Government doctors.

Because medical experts warned that prolonged fasting posed an immediate risk to his vital organs, the authorities maintain they were bound by the court’s command to safeguard his life.

The state further argues that the right to life takes precedence over the right to continue an indefinite fast when death becomes a distinct possibility.

Legally, if an individual’s health crosses a life-threatening threshold, authorities face the risk of being held accountable for negligence. The administration contends that letting a citizen cross into critical organ failure without intervening would violate the State’s ultimate constitutional duty to preserve human life.

To prevent such deep institutional standoffs from repeating, both sides need to choose open dialogue over conflict. When protests reach a standstill, the focus should shift to peaceful discussions. Creating a trusted space to talk allows everyone to address the real issues instead of clashing in public.

A positive approach requires mutual respect. The government must respect the right to peaceful protest. At the same time, organisers must protect the health of their leaders. Cooperating on medical care keeps the focus on the cause and prevents a life-threatening crisis.

The best path forward is to move from the streets to the negotiating table. By holding structured meetings with officials, both sides can find a solution. This approach honours public demands while keeping everyone safe and orderly.

The writer is a senior journalist covering legal affairs; Views presented are personal.