Polity · 21 Jul 2026

Parens patriae Article 21

Assertion (A): The Delhi High Court held that the police relocation of activist Sonam Wangchuk from his hunger strike site to Safdarjung Hospital was "not arbitrary." Reason (R): The doctrine of parens patriae permits the state to compel a competent adult to undergo medical treatment against his express refusal whenever that adult is engaged in a hunger strike. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above Assertion (A) and Reason (R)?

ABoth A and R are true and R is the correct explanation of A
BBoth A and R are true but R is NOT the correct explanation of A
CA is true but R is false
DA is false but R is true

Tests the ability to separate what a court actually ruled from an inflated or overreaching statement of the legal doctrine invoked, a core assertion-reasoning skill.

Subscribe / Login in App →
This question is based on: Wangchuk's Hunger Strike and the Line Between Care and Control
Take this in full test mode → Instructions for 21 Jul 2026
About this question

Why in news

The Delhi High Court's July 19 order refusing to shift Wangchuk to a private hospital, while declining to endorse compulsion, tests the constitutional line between state duty of care and bodily autonomy during an active hunger strike.

Why for UPSC

UPSC's assertion-reasoning format is ideal for testing whether an aspirant can distinguish what a court actually held from a broader, overreaching claim about a legal doctrine's scope - a frequent examiner technique.

Prelims summary

The Delhi HC held Wangchuk's hospital relocation was not arbitrary under parens patriae, but explicitly stopped short of authorising forced medical treatment against his refusal - relocation for observation is not the same as compulsion.

On web, answers are shown once after a test — no save or reattempt. For unlimited reattempts, Hindi medium, and Mentor Observations, use the TAN App.