Today, On 12th January, Sonam Wangchuk’s wife told the Supreme Court that NSA detention based on irrelevant material is bad law. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal called the detention unconstitutional and procedurally flawed as the Court resumed hearings on the petition challenging Wangchuk’s NSA detention.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court resumed hearings on a petition contesting the detention of Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal delivered a strong critique of the detention order, labeling it unconstitutional and procedurally unsound.
Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale heard detailed arguments from Sibal, who asserted that Wangchuk’s fundamental right to make an effective representation under Article 22 of the Constitution had been breached.
Sibal pointed out that the detention was based on four grounds, including four videos from September 24, which were never provided to the detainee.
He stated,
“I have a right of representation to the advisory board and the detaining authority. That right got truncated because these videos were not given to me,”
The Bench questioned whether the alleged failure to supply material affected the constitutional right of representation.
In reply, Sibal cited Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution and contended that Section 5A of the NSA could not undermine these protections.
Emphasizing that Article 22 could not be subordinated to Section 5A of the NSA, Sibal asserted,
“In normal circumstances, I would challenge Section 5A itself as unconstitutional. How can a statute get into the mind of the detaining authority?”
He maintained that this provision could only apply if all the relied-upon material had been disclosed, which was not the situation here.
When the Court inquired if Sibal’s argument was that Section 5A was inapplicable, he affirmed, stating the statute must be interpreted in harmony with Article 22, and a constitutional right cannot be removed by statutory fiction.
Sibal also claimed a lack of independent reasoning by the detaining authority, pointing out that the grounds for detention closely mirrored recommendations from another authority, which had not been disclosed.
Sibal argued,
“The exact words, the exact sentences are the same. It is borrowed satisfaction,”
The Bench noted that the challenge seemed to hinge on the assertion that the detention order was predicated on borrowed material without proper application of mind. Sibal concurred, emphasizing the reliance on irrelevant and outdated information.
He highlighted that several documents referenced incidents from March 2024 onward, even though the detention order was issued in September 2025.
He further explained that the grounds of detention were associated with events on September 10, 11, and 24, 2025, yet relevant material from those dates had not been supplied. Sibal referred to videos posted on Wangchuk’s YouTube channel, arguing that authorities had relied on content either created after the alleged incidents or in which Wangchuk did not participate. He claimed the law mandates a direct connection between the materials used and the detention order, which was entirely lacking.
Adding that the FIRs cited did not name Wangchuk or pertain to his speech. He also noted that an FIR related to violence was filed on September 25, but there had been no developments as of January 2026. Sibal maintained,
“If irrelevant material is relied upon, the detention is bad in law,”
As the hearing concluded, Sibal urged the Court to proceed without a lengthy adjournment, noting that delays could compromise fairness.
In a lighter moment, when the Court remarked that judges do not forget, Sibal quipped that he might.
The hearing was partially completed and will continue on Tuesday, January 13.
In the previous hearing, Sibal had argued that the detention order from September 26, 2025, was primarily based on four videos dated September 10, 11, and 24, identified as the most relevant material for the detention.
However, although the grounds for detention were supplied on September 29, those four videos were not provided to the detainee, constituting a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Earlier, on October 15, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Centre, asserting that Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA adhered to due process and did not violate his legal rights.
In an affidavit to the Supreme Court, the Leh District Magistrate stated that Wangchuk’s detention on September 26 was lawful, citing his alleged role in inciting violence in Ladakh.
The DM confirmed that Wangchuk was notified of his detention, the reasons were communicated, and the order was forwarded to the Advisory Board.
Earlier, On October 6, the court had issued notices to both the Centre and the Union Territory of Ladakh.
However, it declined to rule on Gitanjali’s request for the grounds of her husband’s detention, rescheduling the hearing for October 14.
Earlier, Gitanjali Angmo, the wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, has appealed to the Supreme Court against her husband’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA) by the Ladakh administration.
Wangchuk was detained shortly after violence erupted in Leh, where protestors advocating for statehood for Ladakh clashed with police. He has been a leading voice in the demand for statehood and the extension of the Sixth Schedule to the region.
Angmo has previously criticized the government regarding her husband’s detention, claiming “he is being portrayed as anti-national in a witch-hunt.”
She stated,
“A witch-hunt has been going on against us. We have given all documents clarifying the charges to officials from CBI, to the Income Tax Department, yet a smokescreen is being created to defame Sonam, so that the movement for the Sixth Schedule can be weakened.”
Her comments came after the Leh Police referenced Wangchuk’s visit to Pakistan and suggested he had connections to the neighbouring country.
Angmo responded,
“Sonam attended a conference in Pakistan. What is wrong with that? In February, UN and Dawn media had organised a conference on climate change… There was nothing wrong in that meeting, even though he praised PM Modi’s ‘Mission Life’ on the podium,”
Ladakh’s Director General of Police, SD Singh Jamwal, mentioned that Wangchuk is being investigated in relation to the recent arrest of a Pakistani intelligence operative who had circulated videos of his protests across the border.
In response, Angmo said,
“If they are claiming that a Pakistani was spotted in Ladakh, our question is ‘how did you allow the security breach’? This is not for Sonam Wangchuk to clarify MHA needs to clarify why a Pakistani was in Ladakh.”
The Ladakh Police apprehended activist Sonam Wangchuk and invoked the stringent National Security Act (NSA) just two days after the Union Territory experienced some of its worst violence in decades.
This unrest was triggered by protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule protections, which escalated into violent clashes.
Earlier, the Union home ministry revoked the license of his NGO under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, citing alleged violations. The MHA linked the mob violence and arson that occurred to “provocative” speeches made by Wangchuk, who referenced Arab Spring-style protests and the Gen Z movements in Nepal.
Wangchuk, however, contended that the government is fabricating a case to imprison him.
The alleged violations include depositing locally generated funds into SECMOL’s FCRA account, diverting funds for non-permissible activities such as studying the nation’s sovereignty, and failing to deposit foreign funds into the designated FCRA account.
The protests in Ladakh resulted in four fatalities and over 80 injuries, including among police personnel, on Wednesday. A curfew was imposed in Leh, vehicles were set on fire, and security forces resorted to firing tear gas and live rounds to disperse the crowds.
Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on a hunger strike advocating for statehood and constitutional protections, terminated his fast as tensions escalated after two fellow hunger strikers collapsed and required hospitalization.
This turmoil occurred just days before scheduled talks between the Centre and the Leh Apex Body on October 6, which would be the first in four months. Sources from the Centre indicated that the government wanted Wangchuk excluded from the discussions, viewing him as an impediment.
The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution outlines the governance of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. It empowers local communities to play a significant role in the administration of these regions. The youth in Ladakh are advocating for their region to be governed under the protections of the Sixth Schedule.
According to this Schedule, an autonomous district can be subdivided by the governor if there are multiple Scheduled Tribes present. Each autonomous district is entitled to a District Council with no more than 30 members.
The governor is allowed to nominate up to four members, while the remaining members are elected through adult suffrage.
Furthermore, each autonomous region will have its own Regional Council.
Under the Sixth Schedule, in an autonomous district with Regional Councils, the District Council has powers limited to those delegated by the Regional Council, alongside the powers granted by the Schedule for specific areas.
The Schedule also details the legislative powers of the District Councils and Regional Councils regarding the administration of justice in these autonomous regions.
It specifies the delegation of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to the Regional and District Councils, as well as certain courts and officers for the adjudication of specific suits, cases, and offenses.
The Governor can dissolve a district or regional council based on recommendations from a Commission.
Case Title : Dr Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and others, Diary No. 56964/2025
Read Live Coverage
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sonam Wangchuk