The Supreme Court of India on October 15 adjourned the hearing of a petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Ladakh-based climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. The hearing was postponed to October 29 after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, sought permission to amend the petition to directly contest the grounds of detention now supplied by the Central government.
During the proceedings before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V.Anjaria, Sibal highlighted the necessity to incorporate the new affidavit and detention grounds furnished by the authorities into the petition.
“I’ll amend it so that the matter can continue here,” Sibal told the Court. The Bench recorded the submission and listed the next hearing for October 29, allowing the petitioner time to include the new material in the plea.
The District Magistrate (DM) of Leh, in an affidavit filed on October 14, informed the Supreme Court that Wangchuk had been “indulging in activities prejudicial to the Security of the State, Maintenance of Public Order, and Services essential to the community.” The affidavit was submitted in response to Angmo’s petition, which challenged the legality, motives, and procedural propriety of Wangchuk’s detention under Section 3(2) of the NSA.
The DM stated that the detention was ordered only after a thorough evaluation of intelligence inputs, security reports, and prevailing local conditions:
“The order of detention came to be passed by me after duly considering the material placed before me, as mandated under law, and after arriving at a subjective satisfaction on the circumstances that prevailed within the local limits of my jurisdiction,” the affidavit read.
He further added, “Wangchuk had been indulging in activities prejudicial to the Security of the State, Maintenance of Public Order and Services essential to the community, as mentioned in the grounds of detention. I was satisfied and continue to be satisfied with the detention of the detainee.”
The DM also clarified that Wangchuk was informed of his detention under the NSA and his transfer to Jodhpur Central Jail, Rajasthan, on September 26, 2025, insisting that all procedural safeguards under Article 22 and Section 8 of the NSA were strictly followed.
Sonam Wangchuk, was arrested on September 26 amid widespread protests in Ladakh demanding full statehood and constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule. Following the unrest, authorities placed him under preventive detention and transferred him over 1,000 kilometres away to Jodhpur Central Jail—a move his supporters and legal counsel have described as “punitive, vindictive, and politically motivated.”
The petition filed by Angmo argues that the transfer was intended to isolate Wangchuk from local supporters, legal advisors, and the press, curbing his ability to mount an effective legal defence.
The Supreme Court petition challenges Wangchuk’s detention as illegal, arbitrary, and politically motivated, asserting that it violates his fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution. The plea contends that the detention has “nothing to do with national security or public order” and aims to silence a respected activist advocating democratic and ecological reform.
The petition emphasises that Wangchuk’s activism was peaceful and Gandhian in nature, limited to lawful protests and public addresses calling for Ladakh’s democratic empowerment and environmental protection. It also notes that initially no formal detention order or explanation had been provided, denying Wangchuk his constitutional right to be informed of the grounds of detention and challenge them before a competent court.
Sibal also raised issues regarding restrictions on Wangchuk’s communication, particularly his inability to share written notes with his wife about his detention. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta clarified that the government had no objection to such correspondence but cautioned against using it to create new legal grounds to challenge the detention.
On health concerns, Mehta claimed that Wangchuk was not suffering from any major medical issues requiring attention. Sibal, however, emphasized that the petition’s focus was procedural legality, not Wangchuk’s health.
Comments