Today, On 15th October, In the Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention case, Supreme Court questions Centre with sharp remark “How can we pre-empt misuse?” as Kapil Sibal seeks access to Wangchuk’s notes; SG Tushar Mehta responds; matter relisted for hearing on October 29.
The Supreme Court recorded significant submissions in the ongoing case concerning the detention of Ladakh-based climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk, told the bench that his client had been unable to share handwritten notes regarding his detention with his legal team.
At the beginning of the hearing, the petitioner’s counsel informed the bench that they had now received access to crucial material evidence.
A bench consisting of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria heard the matter.
The petition challenges Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA).
The lawyer said,
“They gave us a pen drive of the videos, but we didn’t have a computer. Now they’ve handed one over so that’s alright,”
The petitioner’s team clarified that they were earlier unable to view the detention videos due to lack of access, but that problem now stands resolved.
However, the defence raised a more serious concern regarding restricted communication.
Kapil Sibal submitted,
“He had made certain notes on the detention which he wanted to pass on to the lawyers. But those notes weren’t allowed to be passed on to his wife or mother. So we never got them.”
Sibal requested that the handwritten notes be shared, stating that under the law, the detainee is entitled to legal assistance before the Advisory Board. Responding to this, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Union Territory administration, said there was no major objection but added one legal caveat.
Mehta said,
“Yes, there’s no difficulty. Only one apprehension delay in making representation is a ground under detention law. Normally, the detainee must make it himself,”
The bench intervened sharply, observing,
“We will say, without prejudice to your rights and contentions… but how can we pre-empt misuse? How can we say , you don’t do this, you don’t do that?”
SG Mehta then informed the Court that the detainee had already met his lawyer twice.
When the bench asked,
“Where is your affidavit?”,
the Solicitor General replied that he would check and confirmed that the detainee had met both his lawyer and wife twice.
The bench directed,
“Then at least place the affidavit on record. It’s not uploaded yet.”
At this point, SG Mehta expressed concern that “new grounds for challenging the detention order are being quietly created.”
Kapil Sibal objected to the remark, stating he would not comment on that observation. The brief exchange led to a moment of visible tension in the courtroom.
SG Mehta clarified that
“The notes which the detenue has prepared he has already discussed them with his lawyer. If he now wishes to share those notes with his wife, we have no objection.”
The Court sought clarification, asking,
“Those are the notes you’re referring to?”
To which SG Mehta confirmed,
“Yes, the same. He’s met his lawyer twice already.”
The Supreme Court then recorded the submissions, noting that the detainee, seeks to share his notes with his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, and that the Solicitor General has no objection to that.
An interim order was accordingly passed.
The bench clarified,
“Any future legal grounds arising from this issue should be staved off. We are not expressing any opinion right now all contentions are kept open.”
The matter will now be relisted for the next hearing.
The Supreme Court also directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta to draw attention to paragraph 18E of the reply affidavit filed by respondent no. 4.
During the proceedings, the bench turned to Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, and asked whether he intended to amend the petition.
In response, Kapil Sibal said,
“Yes, I’ll amend it so the matter can continue here.”
The Court then recorded Sibal’s submission that the petitioner will amend the plea through an interlocutory application, taking into account the recent developments in the case.
The matter has now been relisted for hearing on October 29.
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