CJP chief Dipke begins indefinite fast after Wangchuk’s hospitalisation.
Delhi Police says Wangchuk hospitalised following medical advice.
- Sonam Wangchuk shifted to hospital on day 21 of his hunger strike following High Court orders and medical advice.
- Delhi Police said officers exercised restraint amid attempts by protesters to block the evacuation.
- ANI reported Wangchuk is conscious, with stable vitals, and under observation in the emergency ward.
- CJP founder Abhijeet Dipke alleged police used force, detained and beat him, and lathi-charged protesters.
- Police appealed for protesters to peacefully vacate Jantar Mantar.
- Dipke called for nationwide demonstrations and announced an indefinite hunger strike.
- The incident highlights tensions between protecting protester health, maintaining public order, and upholding the right to dissent.
Sonam Wangchuk, the activist whose inventive streak and outspoken campaigns have long drawn public attention, was moved to hospital on Saturday after his health worsened on the 21st day of a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar, Delhi Police said. Authorities said the transfer followed orders from the Delhi High Court and medical advice, and that officers exercised restraint amid a tense scene as protesters tried to block the medical evacuation.
“As per orders of the Hon’ble High Court and on expert medical advice, due to the deteriorating health condition of Sh. Sonam Wangchuk, he has been shifted to the hospital for essential medical care,” the police statement said, adding that a brief commotion occurred when protesters attempted to obstruct the move. ANI, citing sources, reported that Wangchuk was admitted to the hospital emergency ward, conscious with stable vital signs, and under observation.
Wangchuk’s hunger strike had become a focal point for a wider current of civic frustration: students, activists and ordinary citizens who see his protests as a stand against broader policy decisions they find troubling. For many supporters, his willingness to risk his health recalls earlier hunger strikes in India’s political memory — acts meant to pry open public debate and draw attention to issues that can feel otherwise ignored.
But accounts of Saturday’s events diverged sharply. Abhijeet Dipke, founder of the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) and an outspoken ally of Wangchuk, alleged on social media that police used force at Jantar Mantar and removed Wangchuk “forcefully.” Dipke said he had been stopped near his residence, beaten and detained by police; after his release he posted a video accusing officers of lathi-charging demonstrators during the operation. His claims painted a much rougher picture than the official account and raised immediate questions about crowd control and the limits of protest policing in the capital.
In response, police appealed for calm and urged protesters to vacate the site peacefully. “We request the protestors at Jantar Mantar to peacefully vacate the place at the earliest,” they said, framing the hospital transfer as a necessary humanitarian step carried out under court direction.
The split narratives underscore how rapidly such episodes can become politicised. For supporters, any force used against a hunger striker — particularly one as visible as Wangchuk — is likely to inflame sympathies and broaden the movement. For authorities, the immediate priority is preserving life and maintaining public order, especially when a protest threatens the health of a participant and the safety of the crowd.
Dipke reacted by calling for nationwide demonstrations and announced his own indefinite hunger strike shortly after Wangchuk’s evacuation. “We won’t tolerate this dictatorship,” he told supporters in a video posted on social media, urging intensification of protests. The move signals a possible escalation: what began as an individual fast could now galvanise wider mobilization, drawing in students and activists already bristling at government policies.
Observers note a recurring pattern: high-profile hunger strikes often force difficult choices on authorities, who must balance the legal right to protest with concerns about public safety and disruption. Courts frequently intervene when health risks become acute, as happened here when the High Court ordered medical care. Yet intervention can be read as either protection of a protester’s life or as interference that chills dissent — depending on one’s political viewpoint.
For Wangchuk himself, the hospital transfer will be a critical moment. Medical stabilization may buy time for negotiations or political dialogue, but it can also harden positions if supporters perceive the move as coercive. In the short term, the focus will be on his recovery; in the medium term, activists and authorities will negotiate what comes next: resumed protests, legal petitions, dialogue, or a combination of approaches.
The coming days will likely determine whether this episode becomes a brief flare-up or the spark for a broader movement. For now, Wangchuk’s health and the protesters’ response remain the immediate human story at the centre of a larger political contest.