📄 Abstract
Hunger strikes present one of the most complicated paradoxes in Indian constitutional law. While refusing food is historically celebrated as the ultimate form of non-violent democratic protest, it directly clashes with modern statutory rules and constitutional boundaries. This paper examines the legal friction between a citizen’s freedom of speech and expression under Article 19 and the absolute Right to Life guaranteed by Article 21. By applying the established ‘Doctrine of Non-Waiver,’ the study explores how the state justifies its intervention in indefinite fasts, resting on the argument that an individual cannot legally surrender their own existence. Using the ongoing June 2026 Jantar Mantar agitation—led by Sonam Wangchuk and student activists against national examination irregularities—as a real-time case study, the research highlights the practical tension between civil liberties and administrative control. Furthermore, the paper traces the shifting landscape of criminal law, analyzing how the transition from the old Indian Penal Code (Section 309) to the newly implemented Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Mental Healthcare Act changes the legal status of a fasting protester from a traditional criminal to a citizen in distress. Ultimately, this study proposes a balanced, medically-driven legal framework that allows law enforcement to manage intense protests without violating either the right to dissent or the strict constitutional obligation to preserve human life.
🏷️ Keywords
📚 How to Cite:
Mr. Sukhdev , STARVING FOR JUSTICE: ANALYZING THE LEGALITY OF HUNGER STRIKES IN THE SHADOW OF ARTICLE 21 AND CRIMINAL LAW , Volume 12 , Issue 7, July 2026, EPRA International Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (IJMR) , Pages: 659 - 665 ,