AN ANALYSIS OF HOW OUR GOVERNMENT, JUDICIARY AND MEDICAL SYSTEM WORKS, WHEN IT COMES TO THE THREAT TO A PERSON’S LIFE DUE TO HUNGER STRIKES AND FASTS WHILE DEMANDING ACCOUNTABILITY OR CHANGES IN THE SYSTEM.
ABSTRACT :
Imagine a person locking themselves in a room and refusing to eat food or drink water until a government policy is changed. This is a hunger strike. Now, imagine two groups standing outside the room: A Human Rights, who says, It is their body. They have the right to refuse food to make a point. A Government Official and Doctor, who say, “We cannot just stand here and let this person die. It is our job to save their life”. This exact clash forms the core of the study on hunger strikes and fasts unto death. It is a three major principles which collides with eachother that is Bodily Autonomy (my body, my decision), State Intervention (the government’s duty to save lives), and Medical Ethics (a doctor’s duty to help without causing harm). Our article aims at finding that how this situation works and handled by the set rules and regulation provided by law.
INTRODUCTION :
Our article is based on the findings of “Hunger Strikes And Fasts Unto Death : Autonomy, State Intervention And Medical Ethics”. A hunger strike is the voluntary refusal of food and in extreme cases, water also to express grievance, demand justice, or force legislative action. While peaceful political fasting has a long and respected tradition in political philosophy, most notably through Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of Satyagraha, historically weaponized as non-violent instruments of political and social protest, fasting poses severe legal and moral challenges to modern democratic states. This article examines the delicate balance between an individual’s constitutional right to bodily autonomy and political dissatisfaction, the legal obligation of the State to preserve human life, and the professional problem faced by medical practitioners when intervening in voluntary refusal of nourishment.
BACKGROUND :
Historically, Hunger strikes used it served as a weapon of the powerless against authoritarian forces. Specially during our pre-Independence India when Mahatma Gandhi transformed fasting into a structured method of civil disobedience against British colonial rule. For Gandhi, a fast was a spiritual tool to awaken the conscience of his opponents, strictly rooted in non-violence (Ahimsa). Even after the Post-Independence fasting continued to shape public policy in sovereign India. The martyrdom of Potti Sreeramulu in 1952 after a 56-day hunger strike led directly to the creation of Andhra Pradesh and the linguistic reorganization of Indian states which through out the India gained lot of attention. There is also a famous case which was known as the the longest fast in History where a woman named Irom Chanu Sharmila of Manipur engaged in a 16-year hunger strike (2000–2016) demanding the repeal of the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act (AFSPA). Throughout this period, the State continuously arrested her, kept her in custody, and force-fed her via a nasogastric tube to prevent her death.
LEGAL FRAMEWORK :
1.Fundamental Rights- Article 19(1)(a) & (b)- Guarantees freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly. Courts have recognized that a peaceful hunger strike aimed at demanding accountability or voicing political dissent is a valid form of democratic expression under Article 19. Also Article 21 (Right to Life and Liberty)- The core debate centers on whether the “Right to Life” under Article 21 includes the right to refuse food or end one’s life.
2.Criminalization vs. Decriminalization – Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 Section 115 which created a legal presumption that anyone attempting suicide is under severe stress, effectively restricting criminal prosecution under Section 309. Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita BNS, 2023 Completely removed the general provision criminalizing attempted suicide which formerly IPC 309. However, Section 226 of BNS penalizes acts where an individual attempts or threatens self-harm to compel or restrain a public servant from discharging their official duties. This provision acts as a state restriction against using hunger strikes to coerce government authorities.
THE PRINCIPLE OF BODILY AUTONOMY VS. STATE INTERVENTION VS MEDICAL ETHICS :
Bodily Autonomy- Bodily autonomy dictates that every individual possesses supreme decision-making power over their own physical body. Under the doctrine of self-determination, a mentally competent adult has the fundamental right to decide what medical interventions, nourishment, or treatments enter their body. Forcing nutrition onto a conscious person who explicitly refuses it represents a direct violation of their bodily integrity.
State Intervention – Conversely, the State operates under the doctrine of parens patriae “parent of the nation”, asserting that it has a compelling interest in preserving human life and maintaining public order.
Medical Ethics – Medical practitioners assigned to treat hunger strikers face an intense ethical dilemma. They must reconcile two core bioethical principles are beneficence / Non-maleficence where the duty to act in the best interest of the patient and preserve life “Do no harm”. Autonomy the duty to respect a competent patient’s choices, including the right to refuse medical intervention.
CONCLUSION :
A hunger strike sits at the delicate intersection of rights, laws, and ethics. While the State acts to protect the precious right to life, citizens use fasts as a tool of ultimate non-violent protest. The ideal legal and ethical balance requires the State to address the protester’s grievances and monitor their health care without resorting to unnecessary physical force, respecting human dignity at every step. Respecting Voluntary Protest, Recognizing that peaceful fasting is a legitimate form of expression under Article 19, provided it does not involve violence or direct illegal coercion. Prioritizing Negotiation over Coercion, Addressing the underlying socio-political grievances that drive individuals to fast unto death, rather than relying on forced medical interventions to suppress dissent. In recent days we are aware that how protest is going on in Delhi against NEET Paper leak and other issues involved for the people to engage in this movement. The hunger strikes by activist Sonam Wangchuk or the students involved in the protest put a strong question that how laws, government, medical team will work in order to show that how strong is the implementation of the provided laws or statutes against these movements.
