Today, On 29th January, The Supreme Court resumed hearings on a petition challenging the detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act. Wangchuk told the Court he has the right to criticize and protest without posing threat to state security.
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).
Ladakh climate activist Sonam Wangchuk argued before the Supreme Court that he has the democratic right to criticize and protest against the government, and such actions do not pose a threat to state security warranting his detention.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Wangchuk’s wife, made these assertions to a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale.
Sibal emphasized the need to preserve Ladakh’s natural environment, stating that the local population opposes activities that could damage its pristine surroundings.
The senior counsel said in Court,
“Ladakh is a pristine place where nature has to be preserved. A lot of investments of different kinds are coming in now. The same thing happened in Uttarakhand. We also have an Aravalli matter now. We must protest. There’s nothing wrong with that. If Ladakh is to remain pristine, we don’t want any kind of activity that destroys the environment,”
Sibal also pointed out that there is no evidence of violence against Wangchuk.
He argued,
“All the statements relied upon are verbal statements. Other than that, there’s the padyatra and anshan. These are not violent acts. The ground of detention has to be on proactive acts of violence attributed to me,”
He alleged that many quotes used against Wangchuk were either misattributed or taken out of context.
Sibal noted,
“A detaining authority relying on a statement must rely on the entire statement and cannot rely on a sentence or two… The whole detention order is based on excerpts, out of context, misleading, false, thereby suggesting a selective approach, malafide in nature, to ensure that I am detained,”
The Court was reviewing a plea filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, challenging his preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA) after protests in Leh in September 2025 demanded statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh.
Sibal argued that the videos cited for Wangchuk’s detention contain no incriminating evidence against him, claiming that the authorities relied on FIRs involving other individuals.
Sibal added,
“They have relied upon FIRs against third persons for this detention,”
Referring to a specific video, Sibal countered claims that Wangchuk had threatened to overthrow the government if statehood was not granted.
He explained,
“That’s not true. He does not say that. Please see the transcription. The correct translation. I say if the government does not have affection for citizens, care for its environment, then such a government is an obstacle in the progress of the nation. He says I too can bring change. We all need to be prepared to save mother Ladakh and mother India. What is wrong in this?”
When the Court inquired about a statement attributed to Wangchuk regarding the Army, Sibal responded,
“This is the problem. They have misled the detaining authority. This has not been said by me. I will show what has been said. In any case, this is of 8th June 2025. The detention order is passed on September 26. If this was the worry, he should have been detained in June itself.”
He suggested that misunderstandings regarding the language contributed to the allegations, highlighting that if the detaining authority was unclear about the facts, they might have simply copied and signed the order.
Sibal noted that videos showcasing Wangchuk’s praise for the government, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, were overlooked by authorities.
He stated,
“They don’t show all this. And put selective things in the grounds of detention. They show as if I am advocating a plebiscite. I never made such statements. I have put the links to the fact-checking statements,”
Regarding remarks about Kargil potentially merging with Kashmir, Sibal clarified,
“Somebody told him Kargil wants to merge with Kashmir. He said fine if they want to join they can join. There’s nothing relating to a plebiscite.”
Sibal asserted that random statements had been incorrectly attributed to Wangchuk.
He emphasized,
“I am not in those videos. And most of those videos don’t even have a specific date. A comedian’s statement has been attributed to him,”
Addressing an allegation concerning a statement against a Hindu goddess, Sibal explained that the unedited version reveals the complete context.
He noted,
“It was meant to say that after liberating Ladakh from Kashmir, the Central government failed to extend its promise of constitutional safeguards under the 6th schedule. He says like Rama got out Sita from the clutches of Ravana and left her in the market, similar thing Central government did with Ladakh,”
When the Court queried whether Wangchuk had denied making any statements regarding Hindu deities, Sibal clarified,
“He just made this allegorical statement on Ram. If these are statements on the basis of which one is detained, then we might as well stop speaking. His wife is a practicing Hindu.”
Sibal highlighted that Wangchuk had conducted a peaceful march from Leh to Delhi to advocate for Ladakh’s rights.
He argued,
“There was a walk from Ladakh to Delhi. Like the Punjab kisans did. But there was no disruption. It was peaceful. The argument is here is a man who breaks an anshan, follows Gandhiji’s path, this is his position on 24 September. How does he become a threat to the security of India on 26 September? He did not participate in violence, did not instigate violence,”
He maintained that criticism of the government does not undermine state security.
He contended,
“He says he will not allow violence to take place. The 6th schedule was a promise given by a political party. It was given in 2020. If in 2025 he says fulfil it before elections what’s wrong with it? Anti-government sentiments are not affecting the security of State. I can criticize the government. We do it all the time! That’s what democracy is about. And part of that is protests, marches, peaceful, has any action been taken under CrPC for disturbing public? None,”
In this context, Sibal argued that there were no distinct acts by Wangchuk, asserting that his behavior had remained consistent.
The senior counsel asserted,
“Section 8A of the NSA. If each of the grounds is a separate ground of detention, then the detention order will still hold even if the other grounds are not relevant. Here we are dealing not with separate acts. Here we are dealing with consistent conduct,”
He explained that if a chain of events cumulatively leads to a detention order, those instances should not be treated as separate grounds.
Sibal reiterated,
“In this case, there are no separate grounds of detention,”
However, the Court questioned whether different incidents could constitute separate grounds. In response, Sibal distinguished between criminal prosecution and preventive detention.
He added,
“Yes. Political agitation will happen everywhere in the country. There was a road block in the Delhi riots case, there was no detention order. Prosecution is a separate matter,”
In her challenge against Wangchuk’s detention, Angmo raised concerns about actions taken against him prior to his arrest, including the cancellation of his NGO’s foreign funding certificate.
Her plea states,
“It is wholly preposterous that after over three decades of being recognized at the State, National, and International levels for his contributions to grassroots education, innovation, and environmental conservation in Ladakh and across India, Mr. Sonam Wangchuk would suddenly be targeted. Merely two months before the elections and the final rounds of dialogue between ABL, KDA, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, he was served with notices for land lease cancellation, FCRA cancellation, initiation of a CBI investigation, and summons from the Income Tax Department,”
Angmo claimed that Wangchuk’s detention stemmed not from legitimate public order concerns but from a calculated effort to silence a respected citizen exercising his right to dissent.
During the proceedings, the Court was informed that Wangchuk had developed stomach issues in jail due to possible water contamination, requiring urgent medical attention.
Sibal requested,
“He has problems in his stomach because of the water. He has been wanting a doctor to check. But nobody comes. Let him have a weekly check. And let him have the water we provide,”
In response, State counsel mentioned that he had been seen by the jail doctor 21 times in the last three months, yet the Court insisted on specialist care.
The Court questioned,
“He’s a general physician. When he is specifically saying about stomach ailment, why don’t you get a gastroenterologist?,”
The State counsel replied that Wangchuk was advised Vitamin B12 and had no issues in his last report. However, Sibal pointed to ongoing stomach problems.
The Court ordered that Wangchuk be examined by a specialist, and a weekly report regarding his condition be submitted. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj indicated that all necessary medical care would be provided.
He remarked,
“In every case you make such a request,”
To this, Sibal responded,
“We have had so many people in custody that have been taken care of.”
The Court concluded that if medical assistance is necessary, it must be provided immediately. It then recorded ASG Nataraj’s assertion that a government hospital specialist would assess Wangchuk, and a detailed report would be submitted in a sealed cover by Monday.
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
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
