Today, On 8th January, The Supreme Court heard a petition challenging Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention. Snr. Adv.Kapil Sibal, representing Gitanjali J. Angmo, argued that the “detention was flawed due to procedural errors,” with the matter listed for further hearing on January 12.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court heard the petition filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo, challenging the detention of her husband, climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, under the National Security Act (NSA).
The petition contends that his detention is unconstitutional and infringes on his fundamental rights.
Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale listened to detailed arguments from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, who represented the petitioner.
Sibal contended that the detention was flawed due to significant procedural errors and the withholding of vital information necessary for Wangchuk’s defense.
Sibal highlighted that the detention order issued on September 26, 2025, was primarily based on four videos from September 10, 11, and 24, which were cited as key evidence for the detention.
However, despite the grounds of detention being shared on September 29, these videos were never provided to Wangchuk.
This omission constituted a clear breach of Article 22 of the Constitution. He noted that it is well established in law that the failure to supply documents relied upon for detention renders the order illegal, regardless of the detenue’s prior knowledge of their content.
Citing various Supreme Court rulings, such as Ahmed v. Union of India and Khudiram Das, Sibal emphasized that timely access to all relevant materials is a constitutional requirement, and any delay or refusal undermines the detenue’s right to effectively contest their detention.
Sibal also pointed out that while officials claimed the videos were shared, there was no substantiating evidence of this.
A pen drive provided on September 29 lacked the videos, and while a laptop was given on October 5, it did not rectify the initial violation. He mentioned that Wangchuk had made repeated written requests for the missing videos, which were never fulfilled.
A critical part of Sibal’s case was a video from September 24, where Wangchuk ended his hunger strike following the outbreak of violence.
During the hearing, Sibal showed this clip to the Bench, arguing that it clearly depicted Wangchuk urging an end to violence and distancing himself from unlawful actions.
He asserted that this represented the most pertinent and immediate material but was intentionally omitted from the detaining authority’s review, leading it to mistakenly conclude that Wangchuk’s actions posed a threat to public order.
Adding that the failure to include such exculpatory evidence suggested malice and independently invalidated the detention order, Sibal remarked,
“This speech was not only non-violent but rooted in Gandhian satyagraha. It actually quells violence rather than incites it,”
He further remarked the detention by noting that adverse actions against Wangchuk and his organizations, such as the cancellation of land leases, CBI inquiries, and tax notices, arose only in August and September 2025, coinciding with heightened agitation in Ladakh.
While acknowledging that judicial oversight of preventive detention is restricted, Sibal urged the Court to step in due to clear procedural infringements, especially the non-supply of essential documents and the suppression of evidence beneficial to the detenue.
The Bench encouraged Sibal to finish his submissions and indicated a commitment to a thorough review of the case.
A subsequent hearing has been scheduled for Monday, January 12, at 2 PM. On December 8, 2025, a request for Wangchuk to attend the Supreme Court virtually was made.
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.
n 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