Delhi HC to hear urgent plea on Sonam Wangchuk's hunger strike amid health concerns

The Delhi High Court on July 15 agreed to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) on Thursday, July 16, over concerns about the health of activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been on an indefinite hunger strike at Jantar Mantar since June 28.

A bench comprising Chief Justice D K Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia deferred the matter by a day after noting that no counsel appeared for the authorities because of the Delhi High Court Bar Association's ongoing work abstention.

"Having regard to urgency, list tomorrow," the bench said, while directing that a copy of its order be served on the Additional Solicitor General concerned and the Delhi government counsel.

Wangchuk joined the protest organised by the Cockroach Janta Party, which has been continuing for more than 25 days, demanding the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan over alleged irregularities in the NEET examination.

The PIL, filed by Rakesh Kumar Saini, urged the court to direct the authorities to intervene, provide immediate medical assistance to Wangchuk and initiate talks with him. It also sought directions for force-feeding the activist if necessary to save his life.

Describing the situation as "sad" and "most unfortunate", the petitioner argued that a citizen protesting peacefully was "virtually taking his life in front of the whole nation".

The plea contended that while the government appeared indifferent to the situation, the court should not allow a citizen to "voluntarily die of hunger". It said Wangchuk's death, if it were to occur, would be "a matter of great shame for the country" and called for immediate medical intervention.

The petition also maintained that peaceful protest is a fundamental democratic right and alleged that the authorities' failure to act could amount to "abetment of suicide".

Referring to Wangchuk's fast, the plea stated that despite his prolonged hunger strike, the government had shown little concern, adding that while some believed "the conscience of the nation seems to be dead", the petitioner had approached the court believing "the conscience of the courts is not dead".