Back
High Court Orders Immediate Medical Care for Pune Tribal Students on 15-Day Hunger Strike
The on intervened urgently to safeguard the lives of tribal students in Pune who have been on a hunger strike for the past 15 days, directing the to provide immediate medical attention and hospitalisation where necessary. Acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge, presiding over a Division Bench with Justice Gautam Ankhad, issued the directive after being informed that the health of one of the protesting students had deteriorated. “We do not want a single student to lose his or her life,” the Acting Chief Justice remarked, underscoring the court’s paramount concern for the students’ well-being.
Urgent Intervention by the Bench
The matter was mentioned before the Bench on an urgent basis, highlighting the critical condition of the students who had refused food to press for better infrastructure and educational facilities in tribal ashram schools. The court took a proactive stance, mandating that the state provide appropriate medical facilities and, if required, admit students to hospital. Additionally, the Bench directed authorities to provide food to the students wherever necessary, even amidst their ongoing protest. The order reflects the court’s readiness to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under to protect the fundamental right to life.
Grievances Behind the Protest
The hunger strike stems from long-standing grievances among tribal students regarding the quality of infrastructure and educational amenities in ashram schools run for scheduled tribe communities. The court was apprised of two tragic incidents that galvanised the protest: the death of a student due to food poisoning after consuming food served at a tribal ashram school, and an incident where three students died following snake bites. These events have intensified demands for safer and better-equipped residential schools, with students arguing that inadequate facilities directly endanger their lives and educational futures.
State's Response and Court's Direction
appeared for the and assured the Bench that all necessary steps were being taken to ensure the safety of the protesting students. He informed the court about swift action initiated by the state authorities. Acknowledging the submission, Acting Chief Justice Ghuge observed, “AG has apprised us about the swift action initiated by the State Government.” However, the court stressed that the immediate priority was to prevent any further deterioration in the students’ health. The Bench directed that medical attention be provided without delay and that the students be hospitalised if their condition so warrants. The court also ordered that food be made available to them notwithstanding the protest, indicating that the state cannot wait for the strike to end before fulfilling its duty of care.
Legal Framework and Precedents
The High Court’s intervention is rooted in the constitutional guarantee of the right to life under Article 21, which has been expansively interpreted by the to include the right to health and medical care. In a series of judgments, starting with and , the apex court has held that the government has an obligation to provide emergency medical aid to preserve life. The present order extends that principle to the context of a hunger strike, where the state must act proactively to prevent loss of life, even when the protest is directed against the state itself. The court’s approach also resonates with the doctrine of , which allows the judiciary to act as a guardian for those unable to protect themselves, particularly vulnerable groups such as tribal students.
Implications for State Obligations
The direction places a significant onus on the to not only manage the immediate health crisis but also to address the underlying issues that triggered the protest. The court’s reference to the food poisoning and snake bite deaths signals that systemic failures in ashram schools are under scrutiny. Legal experts note that this order could lead to broader judicial review of the state’s compliance with the and the , which mandate adequate residential facilities for tribal students. The High Court has listed the (PIL) as the first matter before the Division Bench on , indicating that substantive hearing on the grievances will follow.
Impact on Legal Practice and
For legal professionals, this case underscores the effectiveness of PIL as a tool for immediate relief in public health emergencies. The swiftness with which the Bench acted—taking up the matter urgently on a —demonstrates the court’s willingness to bypass procedural delays when lives are at stake. It also highlights the importance of coordinate branches—the judiciary and executive—working together through the Advocate General’s office to find a balanced solution. Lawyers representing marginalised communities may draw on this precedent to seek expedited hearings in cases involving health risks arising from state failures.
Looking Ahead
While the immediate focus remains on stabilising the students’ health, the broader question of accountability for the deaths in ashram schools looms large. The court’s observations suggest that it will closely monitor the state’s actions both during and after the hunger strike. The PIL is likely to evolve into a comprehensive review of the infrastructure, food safety, and medical preparedness of tribal residential schools in Maharashtra. For now, the High Court’s directive serves as a powerful reminder that the right to life cannot be conditional on the cessation of protest—and that the state must act to preserve life, even when its own policies are being challenged.
Conclusion
The ’s order is a timely judicial intervention that prioritises human life over procedural formalities. By directing immediate medical care and food to the protesting tribal students, the court has upheld the constitutional promise of Article 21. The matter, now set for detailed hearing, promises to bring much-needed attention to the plight of tribal students and the systemic deficiencies in ashram schools. Legal professionals will be watching closely as the case unfolds, given its potential to set new benchmarks for state responsibility in public health and education.
