The Supreme Court orally urged the Union government to reconsider the continued preventive detention of Ladakhi social activist Sonam Wangchuk, citing the passage of time and his deteriorating health, even as the Union government defended its decision under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
A bench of justice Aravind Kumar and justice PB Varale was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Mr Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali J Angmo, challenging his detention as illegal. Wangchuk was detained on 26 September 2025, following protests in Ladakh demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status, and was later shifted to Jodhpur.
At the close of the hearing, justice Varale asked additional solicitor general (ASG) KM Nataraj whether the government could 'give it a thought' and reassess the need to continue Mr Wangchuk’s detention, particularly in light of his health condition.
“The detention order was passed nearly five months ago. Considering more particularly his health and condition, which is certainly not very good… is there any possibility for the government to rethink?” justice Varale asked, noting that a medical report submitted earlier showed age-related and other concerns.
Justice Kumar echoed the sentiment. ASG Nataraj responded that the issue is a matter of concern for the government as well and said he would seek instructions.
Opposing the plea, the government argued that Mr Wangchuk’s speech on 24 September 2025 was provocative and directly contributed to the violence that followed.
“Four people died and 161 were injured. Ultimately, it is his provocation and instigation,” Mr Nataraj submitted. “A person need not actively participate. The propensity to influence a group to commit violent acts is more than sufficient for preventive detention.”
He argued that the test under the NSA was whether an individual’s actions disturbed the 'tempo of life of the community', and maintained that the detention was preventive, not punitive.
Earlier, solicitor general (SG) Tushar Mehta had told the Court that Mr Wangchuk sought to instigate a 'riot-like situation' in a sensitive border region and attempted to create a 'them versus us' narrative by referring to the Union government as 'them'. SG Mehta had also claimed that Mr Wangchuk was pushing a Nepal- or Bangladesh-style Gen Z movement in Ladakh.
A key plank of the government’s defence was that Mr Wangchuk had challenged only the original detention order passed by the Leh district magistrate and not the subsequent approvals by the state government or the advisory board constituted under the NSA.
Mr Nataraj told the Court that multiple safeguards had been followed: the detention order was approved by the state government, reviewed by an advisory board headed by a former High Court judge, and independently reconsidered thereafter. He said Mr Wangchuk had made detailed representations through his wife and that the advisory board had even travelled to Jodhpur for the hearing.
However, the bench appeared unconvinced that this procedural argument alone could save the detention.
“If the very foundation of the detention order is bad, all subsequent actions would go,” justice Kumar observed, noting that the petition fundamentally challenged the detention order itself on grounds of non-application of mind.
The Court also asked the government to place original records, including the senior superintendent of police’s recommendation to the district magistrate, after the petitioner alleged that the detention order was a near verbatim reproduction of the police note.
The Court’s intervention came against the backdrop of Ms Angmo’s plea seeking specialised medical examination for Mr Wangchuk after he complained of recurring stomach pain. A medical report was submitted to the court during an earlier hearing.
While reiterating that the NSA permits non-disclosure of sensitive material in the interest of public order, the Bench stressed that executive discretion must still operate within constitutional limits.
“If somebody says, ‘I see him as a potential threat and therefore I detain him’, that by itself would not be sufficient,” the Court remarked.
The matter will continue to be heard, with the government expected to place records and seek instructions on whether it will reconsider Mr Wangchuk’s continued detention.
India’s Tourism Paradox: Grand Ambitions, Gridlocked Reality
Sucheta Dalal,
06 February 2026
Budget 2026 sends out a strong signal that India finally recognises how we are losing the global tourism race, despite extraordinary cultural diversity, wealth of historical monuments and scenic beauty. Not only are we not attracting...
Election Commission Is WhatsApp Commission, Targeting Bengal before Polls: Mamata Banerjee to Supreme Court in SIR Case
Debayan Roy (Bar
and
Bench)
04 February 2026
West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Wednesday appeared in person before the Supreme Court and flagged various issues in the ongoing Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in West Bengal.
Wearing a white...
Send Name Discrepancy Notices Carefully: Supreme Court to ECI in Mamata Banerjee Plea against West Bengal SIR
Debayan Roy (Bar
and
Bench)
04 February 2026
The Supreme Court on Wednesday issued notice in the plea filed by West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee challenging the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in the State.
The Bench of Chief Justice of India...
Mumbai Traffic Rules Tightened from 1st February: Heavy Vehicles Barred in Peak Hours, Parking Curbs Enforced
Moneylife Digital Team
02 February 2026
Mumbai has enforced a comprehensive set of traffic regulations from 1st February as the Mumbai traffic police stepped up efforts to tackle worsening congestion, rising accident risks and growing pressure on the city’s limited road...
