The Supreme Court questioned the Centre on the “application of mind” behind Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act. ASG KM Nataraj defended the order, saying preventive detention cannot be compared to court judgments; rejoinder arguments will continue Monday at 2 PM.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India on Thursday heard a petition filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo challenging the preventive detention of Ladakh-based climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).
The case is being heard by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
The matter has once again brought the spotlight on the constitutional safeguards available to citizens detained under preventive detention laws such as the NSA. The petitioner has questioned the legality of Wangchuk’s detention and alleged procedural lapses, particularly regarding the supply of documents and materials relied upon by the detaining authority.
At the beginning of the hearing, the Court was informed that the petitioner, Gitanjali Angmo, was present in court. Senior government law officer ASG K.M. Nataraj initially informed the Bench that he was engaged in another matter, following which assisting counsel began submissions.
Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that the materials relied upon in the detention order, particularly the video recordings, did not match the allegations mentioned in the grounds of detention. He submitted before the Court,
“The videos which we given to my Lord, the videos which are part of the link, so that in fact when I watched them yesterday. What is written and what is in the videos that I have gone is diagonally different.”
Justice Aravind Kumar sought clarification and asked,
“Which are those videos?”
In response, counsel stated,
“The main ones referred to in the detention office. What is written is different and what is in the videos completely different.”
The petitioner’s lawyer further attempted to explain the context of certain statements attributed to Wangchuk in the detention order. He said,
“If they move at Kashmir, they don’t share it with, in the past also, if people want to go somewhere, they had a plebiscite. This is the context of that plebiscite, nothing to do with India. And about army.”
He also highlighted Wangchuk’s recent public activities to argue that he was not promoting violence. Counsel told the Court,
“-even days before, on 17th, you see, they are doing Vipassana, and they are celebrating the Prime Minister’s birthday in a ritualistic manner.”
Continuing his submissions, the lawyer emphasized that Wangchuk had clearly advocated non-violence. He stated,
“Read that also. It’s completely different note. In fact, when other people spoke about the uprising, he’s denying it. He said, no, we are a non-violent country. This is not to defeat our purpose. We have to go the Gandhian way.”
At this stage, ASG K.M. Nataraj appeared and began responding to the allegations. He informed the Court that the government had supplied all necessary materials to the detenue.
He said,
“we supplied full videos and we also supplied clip portion of the release portion.”
Justice Kumar sought confirmation regarding the documents and digital materials, stating,
“You have supplied the entire documents, the pendrive.”
The ASG replied,
“Pendrive. Correct.”
Justice Kumar then observed,
“Whether the, hope you have no objection if we ask you a question. I don’t know, the presumption.”
The ASG responded,
“We always feel that whenever the court poses the question, whether it’s relevant or irrelevant, we are going to answer.”
The Bench asked whether the materials shown in the detention order had actually been furnished to the detenue. Justice Kumar said,
“We want to know whether the, what is being shown in the detention order, that has been furnished to him.”
The ASG answered,
“Yes, that I will point out with reference to the one acknowledgement received which you have pointed out on the other days. Again, that is part of the documents compilation.”
The ASG further referred to the compilation of documents and said,
“We have read the medical documents. 13 other states. Please go to page number 3.”
He then listed the documents allegedly supplied to Wangchuk, stating,
“-Documents which has been supplied to him. 1. Detention order. 2. Grounds of detention. 3. Annexure A. Annexure A is referred to in the detention order. Comprising of Then 4 FIs again referred to in para 3.”
He continued,
“-Then one pen drive containing videos mentioned in the annexure A and B, annexure B. Now then it comes out further at the bottom the acknowledgement. That’s most crucial. The case is made out that by saying. The documents have not been furnished to me.”
Defending the detention order, ASG Nataraj strongly opposed the petitioner’s claim of procedural violation.
He argued,
“On the face of it, when all these documents have been furnished, each have been categorically mentioned in the detention order. Now the case is made out of the allegations made before the sample court, before the highest court of the country, saying that documents have not been furnished to me.”
He then laid down the legal position on preventive detention, stating,
“-the only protection or the right guarantee to a detainee who has been detained under any of the preventive detention laws is the procedural safeguards alone, nothing else. subjective satisfaction, nor the sufficiency of material, cannot be gone into at all in a proceedings, either under Article 226 or under Article 32, in the matter of examining the preventive detention orders.”
He stressed the importance of constitutional checks and balances and said,
“That, in fact, is the only guarantee to the citizens against the State’s action of preventive detention. Kindly note the last sentence, that in fact is the only guarantee to the citizens against the State’s action of preventive detention. This checks and balances are the constitutional checks that have been enshrined in any preventive detention law. That is number one.”
The ASG then explained the procedural framework under the NSA. He submitted,
“-The order has to be passed on three conditions, on subjective satisfaction, on whether it is required to be detained for national security or to maintain public order or to essential supplies to the society.”
He added,
“-Number two, that has to go to the government for approval. Then, it has to go to the advisory board. Then, the confirmation order has to be passed. In between, the copies will have to be given to make an effective or proper representation. Now, all these procedural requirements which have been guaranteed to him either under Article 22.5 or under the Act, have been scrupulously or meticulously complied with.”
Addressing the Bench’s earlier query regarding the connection between Wangchuk’s statements and alleged unrest, the ASG argued that preventive detention can be based on suspicion.
He said,
“The court was at the last occasion of posing a question, how do you connect it? The connecting certain things not with necessary, it is a suspicion or reasonable probability.”
He clarified the legal standard, stating,
“-These two elements, either one is exist that is sufficient to pass an order of detention. On suspicion or reasonable probability, the detention order can be passed. In Ashok Kumar’s case, yesterday I cited.”
The ASG also referred to alleged violence during protests and placed details on record. He submitted,
“My Lords, the record reflects that the protests turned violent. Government offices and private property were burnt. Security personnel on duty were attacked. In the aftermath, four protesters lost their lives, around sixty were injured, and more than thirty security personnel sustained injuries.”
In a significant statement, the ASG contended that even a single statement by the detenue could justify preventive detention.
He argued,
“even one statement of the detenue reasonably led the authority to suspect that it contributed to the violence in that particular area, that single ground is sufficient to sustain the order. Preventive detention does not require proof of direct causation; reasonable suspicion suffices.”
Finally, he submitted that the detention had effectively restored peace in the region. He stated,
“As I pointed out, immediately after the detention, the complete agitation and the violence has come to control. That alone is the test and it is proved to be the perfect order and has justified into the situation.”
Adding to the exchange, the ASG stressed that the detention order must be read as a whole and not in isolation of selective paragraphs. He reiterated that the law does not require lengthy reasoning but demands that the authority’s “subjective satisfaction” be based on relevant material and reflected clearly in the order itself.
According to the ASG, the detailed narration of facts beginning from page 116 of the detention record demonstrates that the authority evaluated the incidents, statements, and surrounding circumstances before arriving at its decision. He argued that this itself shows due compliance with constitutional safeguards under Article 22(5) and the statutory requirements of the National Security Act.
The Bench’s question indicates that the Court is carefully testing whether there was a genuine and independent application of mind by the detaining authority, or whether the order was passed mechanically.
The issue of “application of mind” remains central, as courts have consistently held that even in preventive detention matters, the satisfaction of the authority must be real, relevant, and based on material placed on record.
ASG K.M. Nataraj urged the Bench not to compare preventive detention orders with detailed judicial judgments passed by courts. He submitted,
“submission is kindly don’t equate with the order of the course, can’t compare with the orders of the course, and it has to be tested or examined with reference to the text or the particular situation which prevailed in the particular area.”
Through this submission, the ASG emphasized that a detention order under the National Security Act cannot be expected to resemble a court’s reasoned judgment. Instead, he argued, it must be assessed in the context of the ground realities and prevailing law-and-order situation in the concerned region at the time it was passed.
According to him, the adequacy of reasoning should be judged based on whether the authority’s subjective satisfaction is evident from the record, not by comparing it to judicial standards of writing.
With arguments from the Union side substantially concluded, the matter is now set to proceed to rejoinder submissions by the petitioner.
The Court indicated that rejoinder arguments will continue on Monday at 2 PM, where the petitioner’s counsel is expected to respond to the government’s detailed defence of the preventive detention order.
Case Title:
GITANJALI J. ANGMO AND ANR. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.,
W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025
Read Live Coverage:
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sonam Wangchuk
