SC seeks Centre, Ladakh response on Wangchuk’s detention plea

The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought responses from the Centre and the Union Territory of Ladakh administration on an amended petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Ladakh-based climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, who has been detained under the NSA (National Security Act, 1980).

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria took the amended habeas corpus petition on record and posted the matter for hearing on 24 November. The development marks a crucial phase in the legal battle over Wangchuk’s detention, which has triggered a wave of concern among civil society and environmental circles across the country.

The court’s order comes after it had, on 16 October, allowed Dr Angmo to amend her plea to directly challenge the grounds of detention relied upon by the Ladakh administration to justify Wangchuk’s arrest under the stringent NSA. In her amended petition, Dr Angmo calls the detention 'illegal” and “a calculated attempt to silence a respected citizen for espousing democratic and ecological causes.”

She asserts that the administration’s reliance on old and irrelevant materials, including what she describes as 'stale FIRs' and extraneous statements, reveals a clear misuse of preventive detention powers meant for genuine threats to national security.

The amended application, filed through advocate Sarvam Ritam Khare, meticulously dissects the grounds of detention, calling them “ex facie unsustainable in law.” It argues that the entire case against Wangchuk rests on five FIRs (First Information Reports), four of which either predate his detention by over a year or do not name him at all.

Dr Angmo contends that there is “no proximate, live, or rational nexus” between these FIRs and Wangchuk’s preventive detention in September 2025.

According to the petition, three of the five FIRs were registered in 2024, long before the current agitation in Ladakh. These FIRs, the plea says, make no mention of Wangchuk or any allegation linking him to acts prejudicial to public order.

The fourth FIR, which does name him, was lodged shortly after he joined the ABL (Apex Body of Leh), an organisation leading the movement for statehood and Sixth Schedule safeguards for Ladakh. However, that FIR, Dr Angmo argues, pertains to "completely different facts" and is unrelated to the violence that later broke out in Leh.

The fifth FIR, dated 24 September — just a day before Wangchuk’s detention — was filed against "unknown miscreants". It alleges that some youths had “through a deliberate conspiracy, instigated those who joined the hunger strike and turned the gathering into a procession”, which subsequently led to stone pelting at the office of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council.

Dr Angmo notes that even this FIR does not name her husband and insists that linking him to the episode is baseless. Thus, she argues, the detention order “suffers from gross illegality and arbitrariness” and is a clear case of preventive detention without material grounds.

The petition also challenges the government’s portrayal of Wangchuk as an instigator of the protests. It points out that while he was a supporter of both the ABL and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), he only formally joined the ABL in 2025, long after the two organisations had announced their plan to intensify their agitation.

The ABL and KDA had declared a three-day joint hunger strike in Kargil between 10 and 12 August, months before Wangchuk assumed any decision-making role. “The question of instigation does not arise,” the plea states, adding that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had itself objected to Wangchuk’s inclusion in the ABL-KDA delegation during talks with the Centre.

Angmo’s plea asserts that Wangchuk’s speeches were selectively quoted to portray him as inflammatory. One such example, she says, is the administration’s reliance on a speech in which he mentioned uprisings in Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Bangladesh. The plea notes that the very next line of his speech explicitly rejected violence, advocating instead a 'peaceful revolution' through fasting and non-violence.

“The omission of this clarifying sentence results in a selective and distorted portrayal,” the plea argues, calling the interpretation “malicious and misleading.”

The amended petition also underscores a series of punitive actions taken against Wangchuk and his institutions shortly before his detention. Within two months of the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council elections, scheduled for October, Wangchuk and his NGOs faced land lease cancellation notices, an FCRA suspension, income tax summonses, and the initiation of a CBI probe. Dr Angmo contends that these actions, combined with the timing of the detention, point to “a political vendetta” aimed at stifling dissent.

Equally serious are the procedural lapses cited in the petition. Angmo states that Wangchuk was given an incomplete detention order three days after his arrest on 26 September and that he received the full grounds of detention only on 23 October — after a delay of 28 days and just one day before his hearing before the advisory board.

She claims that the four videos referred to in the detention grounds were supplied only on the Board’s direction, thus violating Sections 8 and 11 of the NSA, which require that the grounds be furnished within five days of detention, and at most within ten days under exceptional circumstances. The delay, she says, deprived Wangchuk of his statutory right to make an effective representation.

Dr Angmo’s plea paints a portrait of a man who, far from being a threat to public order, has worked for decades to strengthen the nation. It highlights Wangchuk’s pioneering work in educational reform and environmental innovation, including the development of solar-powered heating tents for the Indian Army.

The petition calls the suggestion that he poses a security threat 'wholly preposterous' noting his lifelong advocacy for ecological balance and constitutional values.

The Supreme Court’s decision to seek responses from the Centre and Ladakh administration now sets the stage for a significant hearing on 24 November. For Ladakh, the outcome could have implications far beyond one man’s detention — it could define the limits of dissent, democracy, and environmental activism in India’s most fragile and strategic region.