Today, On 29th October, In the Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention case, The Supreme Court sought the response of the Centre and the Union Territory of Ladakh on a plea challenging Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA and permitted the petitioner to amend the habeas corpus petition.
The Supreme Court permitted an application to introduce additional facts and grounds in the habeas corpus petition submitted by Gitanjali Angmo, the spouse of Sonam Wangchuk, a renowned education reformer and climate activist from Ladakh.
Wangchuk is reportedly detained in Jodhpur jail under the National Security Act (NSA) following recent violent incidents in Ladakh.
Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria were reviewing the plea for Wangchuk’s release when Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, informed the Court about an amendment application (No. 31653) that had been previously filed.
When Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union of India, indicated that the Centre had received the application only the night before, Justice Kumar noted that the Bench had not been able to locate it earlier that morning.
Justice Aravind Kumar further remarked,
“Are you raising additional grounds? It’s too voluminous… We’ll allow the amendment.”
Sibal also highlighted a typographical mistake in the petition, clarifying that “on page 99, it should be paragraph 3, not paragraph 4.”
The Court subsequently issued an order permitting the petitioners to submit the new facts and grounds. It instructed the petitioner to file the amended petition within one week, while allowing the respondents ten days to provide their additional response.
Any rejoinder must be submitted within a week thereafter.
The case is scheduled for its next hearing on November 24.
Previously, on October 15, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the Centre, stating that Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA adhered to due process and that his legal rights were not infringed.
Earlier, Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, told the Supreme Court, “I am being followed and under surveillance in Delhi constantly.”
She said this surveillance infringes on her constitutional rights and began after her arrival on 30.09.2025.
During the previous hearing, when notice was issued, Kapil Sibal argued that the grounds for Sonam Wangchuk’s detention had not been served to them. On the other hand, SG Tushar Mehta submitted that there is no legal requirement to communicate the grounds of detention to the detainee’s wife.
Sibal clarified that he would not be relying on the non-supply of the detention grounds to the wife as a reason to challenge the detention itself, adding that he was requesting the grounds “so that the detention itself can be challenged.”
During that hearing, Justice Kumar had also asked why the petitioner had not approached the High Court. Sibal replied that the detention order was passed by the Central Government and questioned which High Court could be approached.
To this, Justice Kumar remarked,
“You tell us. Answer this question also next date.”
Yesterday, the Leh District Magistrate filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court denying any illegality in the detention.
Earlier, yesterday, The Supreme Court postponed the hearing on a petition filed by Gitanjali J Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, to October 15.
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.
The BJP office in Leh was also set ablaze during the unrest.
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.
Also Read: CJI B R Gavai Honors Mahatma Gandhi on Gandhi Jayanti During Mauritius Visit
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