Today, On 29th October, In the Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention case, Gitanjali J Angmo told the Supreme Court that “it is wholly preposterous and politically driven that Sonam Wangchuk, after decades of nation-building through education and environmental innovation, is suddenly being targeted,” calling his detention an attempt to silence democratic dissent.
Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of Ladakh climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, informed the Supreme Court that her husband’s detention is not genuinely motivated by concerns for public order or security; rather, it is a calculated effort to silence a respected citizen exercising his right to dissent.
Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act (NSA) following violent protests in Leh in September, where demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule status for the Union Territory of Ladakh were raised.
Angmo, who previously criticized Wangchuk’s detention, is now seeking to amend her plea to challenge his imprisonment on substantive grounds after the reasons for his detention were recently provided to him.
In her application for adding grounds to contest his detention, Angmo highlighted a series of actions taken against Wangchuk prior to his arrest, including the cancellation of the foreign funding certificate for his NGO.
The amended 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,”
The plea further asserts that his detention is based on five First Information Reports (FIRs), three of which do not even mention allegations against him.
The plea states, denying any connection between the FIRs and his detention,
“Out of the five FIRs relied upon, three pertain to the year 2024, bearing no proximate, live, or rational nexus to the detention of Mr. Wangchuk in September 2025. Moreover, four out of five of the FIRs, out of which three are registered against ‘unknown persons,’ do not name Mr. Sonam Wangchuk,”
Angmo has also refuted allegations that Wangchuk, a key member of the Apex Body of Leh (ABL), incited the public. She revealed that the Union Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had strong reservations about his involvement in the dialogue process with the Centre.
The plea notes that it was suggested that if the MHA were to hold the next round of talks soon and include Mr. Sonam Wangchuk in the High-Powered Committee delegation, the ABL would call off the 35-day Anshan.
However, this proposal to include Wangchuk was categorically rejected by the MHA, citing ‘higher-level decisions.
Angmo also claimed that Wangchuk’s remarks concerning uprisings in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka have been misinterpreted, either due to a misunderstanding of nuance or selective quoting from a longer speech. His message was clearly rooted in peace, non-violence, and democratic methods, and any contrary interpretation is unjust, misleading, and malicious, the plea asserts.
She further argued that for the past 30 years, Wangchuk has diligently worked for nation-building through educational reform and environmental solutions, earning recognition from various state and central governments.
Regarding the violence, Angmo stated that Wangchuk acted promptly to mitigate it and restore peace.
Emphasizing Wangchuk’s commitment to protecting Ladakh’s fragile ecology, Angmo denied allegations that he engaged in activities harmful to state security. She highlighted his support for the Armed Forces in the region.
She stated,
“Wangchuk has made significant contributions in support of national security and the Armed Forces, including the design and development of mobile solar-powered self-heating tents for the Indian Army deployed in extreme high-altitude regions. His work has been directed towards assisting and strengthening the capabilities of the Indian security forces, not undermining them in any manner.”
The claims that he advocated for an independent Ladakh have also been refuted. Angmo argued that the demand for Ladakh’s inclusion under the Sixth Schedule reflects his loyalty to and faith in the Constitution.
The plea further states,
“The allegation that Mr. Sonam Wangchuk has been ‘regularly bragging about his foreign connections and threatening to use such connections against the Government’ is wholly unsubstantiated, incorrect, and without any material on record,”
In this context, Angmo pointed out that during a conference in Pakistan, Wangchuk praised Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s environmental policies.
The plea also accuses certain “IT Cells” of deliberately using edited clips to misrepresent his statements.
Describing Wangchuk’s detention as “a manifestation of political vendetta” for his democratic questioning of unfulfilled electoral promises and policies, the plea argues:
“The primary issue raised by Mr. Wangchuk concerns the need for environmentally sustainable and locally participatory development in Ladakh. His opposition to certain projects was based purely on ecological concerns, particularly regarding large-scale ventures by private business interests that threaten the fragile Himalayan ecosystem. Far from promoting unrest, his advocacy seeks to empower local communities within the constitutional framework and to safeguard Ladakh’s environment and democratic values through peaceful and lawful means.”
The amended plea has been filed through Advocate Sarvam Ritam Khare.
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