On one hand, the citizen has a fundamental right to peacefully protest and dissent. On the other hand, the government has a strict constitutional duty to save human life! With climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s fast at Jantar Mantar crossing 19 days, the Delhi High Court reminded authorities that the “life of any citizen is precious.” Here is a crystal-clear breakdown of how the Supreme Court balances a citizen’s right to dissent against the government’s duty to keep them alive.

1. The Supreme Court has ruled that an indefinite hunger strike is inherently illegal as it violates the Right to Life under Article 21.
2. Under the legal doctrine of parens patriae, the State has a bounden duty to provide medical aid to preserve the life of a fasting protester.
3. The fundamental right to peacefully assemble and protest can be restricted by the State on the grounds of maintaining public order.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only    (b) 2 and 3 only    (c) 1 and 3 only    (d) 1, 2 and 3

• Statement 1 — Incorrect (the trap): The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that peaceful hunger strikes are neither unconstitutional nor barred by law; they are a legitimate form of peaceful dissent protected under Article 19.
• Statement 2 — Correct: Under the principle of parens patriae (the State as a guardian), authorities are legally bound to provide medical assistance to prevent the loss of life.
• Statement 3 — Correct: While peaceful protest is a fundamental right, it is not absolute. Under Article 19(2) and (3), the State can impose reasonable restrictions in the interest of sovereignty, security, and public order.