Today, On 3rd February, The Central government and Ladakh administration told the Supreme Court that all procedural safeguards were followed while detaining climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA). The Centre emphasized that “Sonam Wangchuk has been given a fair treatment.”
The Central government and the Ladakh administration informed the Supreme Court that all necessary procedural safeguards were observed while detaining climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).
This statement was made by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta before a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale, opposing a petition challenging Wangchuk’s detention.
The SG remarked,
“I am saying that he (Wangchuk) has been given a fair treatment,”
Mehta further argued that due to the nature of the powers granted under the NSA, some flexibility is allowed for the statutory authority.
He explained,
“I’m not saying that I am entitled not to comply. I am just pointing to the latitude of the scheme of the Act,”
He also mentioned that the detention order was issued because Wangchuk was allegedly inciting people in a region adjacent to Pakistan and China.
The Court was hearing a plea filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, against his preventive detention.
Wangchuk was detained under the NSA following protests in Leh in September 2025, which demanded statehood and Sixth Schedule status for the Union Territory of Ladakh.
Angmo’s counsel argued last month that Wangchuk has the democratic right to criticize and protest against the government, and such expressions do not pose a threat to state security that would justify his detention.
In response, the Union government and the Leh administration claimed that Wangchuk was advocating for agitation and violence in the Union Territory, similar to events in Nepal and Bangladesh.
The government alleged that Wangchuk referred to the Central government as them, indicating secessionist tendencies, and incited Generation Z to engage in violence and civil unrest.
Continuing his arguments today, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta highlighted a speech by Wangchuk in which he claimed that Ladakhis lack the right to elect their representatives.
Wangchuk had stated,
“‘It is unacceptable that Ladakhis cannot choose their own representatives. China, Tibet etc have autonomous rights’,”
Mehta contested this assertion.
Mehta explained,
“If a Chinese national argued this, I can understand. This is like a sandwich. Bread on this side. Bread on that side. The bread is Gandhiji. In between, other things come. The detaining authority is concerned with what’s there in between. The person is instigating people in a border area. Bordering Pakistan and China,”
When the Court inquired if the statements highlighted by him would pose a threat to the country, Mehta affirmed that they did. He added that such statements also constituted a threat to public order.
Mehta stated,
“The security of India, threat to public order, and disruption of supplies, all are seen in the speeches,”
He elaborated,
“This is a preventive action so that he doesn’t keep repeating the things he (Wangchuk) said. The detention strikes at the very purpose for which the NSA was enacted. It will have a contextual meaning. Every state has region-specific sensitivities,”
Addressing the argument that the detention order and its grounds were identical, Mehta asserted,
“It is not necessary that I paraphrase the whole thing. I [detaining authority] can say yes I read it and I am satisfied.”
Mehta concluded his arguments today, with Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj expected to present next on Wednesday.
The Centre and the Ladakh Administration were represented by SG Mehta, along with Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan Shiv Mangal Sharma, and advocates Arkaj Kumar, Astha Singh, and Aman Mehta.
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.
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