‘Reading too much’: SC questions Centre’s grounds for detaining Sonam Wangchuk under NSA

New Delhi: In a significant hearing on preventive detention powers, the Supreme Court on Wednesday sharply questioned the Centre’s justification for holding Ladakh climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980, observing that the government appeared to be attributing meaning to his statements that they did not reasonably bear. While the Union maintained that Wangchuk was the “chief provocateur” of violent protests in Leh in September 2025 and posed a continuing risk to public order, the court indicated that several of the detention grounds rested on disputed interpretations of his speeches. The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale heard a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, challenging the legality of his detention and will continue the matter on Thursday after taking the original records of the case into custody.

During the proceedings, Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj argued that Wangchuk had warned of a possible violent uprising in Ladakh similar to Nepal and that such remarks, coupled with doubts expressed by local youth about non-violence, justified preventive action. The court, however, countered that Wangchuk had in fact voiced concern over any drift away from peaceful methods. “He is worried… some people are abandoning Gandhian peaceful ways.

This is worrying,” the bench noted while reading out his statement, adding that the focus of his comment was anxiety over potential violence, not endorsement of it. When Nataraj suggested that Wangchuk used “hybrid expressions,” the judges responded tersely, “Too much of reading.”

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta intervened to caution the court against any comparison with Mahatma Gandhi, saying, “Let us not glorify something which is completely anti-India with the father of the nation.” He also expressed apprehension that media reports could portray the bench as equating Wangchuk with Gandhi. The judges made clear they were not concerned with external perceptions, with Justice Kumar remarking, “Why are you trying to make an ant out of a molehill?”

Wangchuk was detained after protests in Leh demanding statehood for Ladakh and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. Last week, the Supreme Court had urged the Centre to reconsider the detention in view of his health, but the government informed the court that authorities had decided against releasing him on medical grounds. Mehta told the Bench that Wangchuk had undergone 24 medical examinations since his detention and was “fit, hale and hearty,” aside from a treated digestive issue. “The grounds on which the detention order was passed continue. It will not be possible to release him on health grounds,” he said.

Defending the detention, Nataraj asserted that four separate incidents formed independent grounds under the NSA, and even if one failed, the others would survive. He alleged that Wangchuk instigated youth by citing Nepal and the Arab Spring, compared Ladakh’s security situation to Pakistan and China, and spoke of using “foreign connections” to address domestic issues. The government also contended that his reference to the Centre as “them” indicated secessionist intent, submitting, “There is no us and them. We are all Indians.”

Linking Wangchuk to last year’s violence, Nataraj said the unrest resulted in four deaths, 160 injuries, and arson, and claimed that the situation stabilised only after his preventive custody. He maintained that mere suspicion was sufficient for detention under the NSA and that all procedural safeguards had been followed.

Angmo’s counsel rejected these claims, arguing that her husband had a democratic right to protest and had publicly condemned the Leh violence, calling it the saddest day of his five-year peaceful movement. She said the events of September 24 could not be attributed to him.

As the hearing concluded, the court directed the government to provide links or copies of Wangchuk’s videos and retained the detention records for examination. The case will resume on Thursday, with the Centre represented by Mehta, Nataraj, Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan Shiv Mangal Sharma, and advocates Arkaj Kumar, Astha Singh, and Aman Mehta.