Key Points
Dr. Gitanjali Angmo filed a petition in the Supreme Court challenging the detention of Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act alleging procedural and substansive lapses.
The petitioner argued that Wangchuk had not been supplied evidence which formed the grounds for his detention. Further, it was argued, evidence was selectively presented in favour of his detention.
The petitioner argued that Wangchuk had called for peace when violence broke out. The Home Ministry had earlier argued that preventative detention was necessary to prevent further disturbances.
The Supreme Court on Thursday, 8 January 2026, heard detailed arguments challenging the preventive detention of Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA). This was based on a habeas corpus petition filed by Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, educator and wife of Wankchuk, challenging the detention.
Wangchuk was detained on 26 September 2025, after violence broke out following protests in Leh demanding statehood and safeguards under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna Varale heard the petition. Representing Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal alleged that authorities suppressed crucial material, including a video in which Wangchuk appealed for an immediate end to violence during protests in Ladakh. He argued that the detention order was fundamentally flawed on both procedural and substantive grounds.
The order, he said, relied on four videos dated September 10, 11 and two from 24, but these videos were not supplied to Wangchuk when the grounds of detention were served on 29 September 2025. According to Sibal, this violated Article 22 of the Constitution, which guarantees a detenue the right to be informed of the grounds of detention and to make an effective representation against it.
See Also: Protesters Torch BJP Office, Clash With Police in Ladakh Over Statehood Demand: 4 Killed, 50 Injured
Sibal submitted that even though the Union government claimed the materials had been supplied, there was no proof to show that the four videos were actually provided. He said that what Wangchuk eventually received were only links to the videos, and that a laptop given on 5 October 2025 could not cure the defect because the pen drive supplied earlier did not contain the relied-upon material. Wangchuk, he added, had repeatedly written from custody pointing out that the videos were missing, but copies were never furnished.
The senior advocate stressed that the law is settled that if documents relied upon in a detention order are not supplied, the detention stands vitiated. He cited Supreme Court precedents to argue that it is irrelevant whether the detenue already knows the contents of the documents or whether he specifically demanded them. Supplying all relied-upon material, he said, is a constitutional obligation of the detaining authority.
Sibal also pointed to the suppression of a video from 24 September 2025 in which Wangchuk broke his hunger strike and publicly appealed for an immediate end to violence. According to Sibal, incidents of violence had occurred on the fifteenth day of Wangchuk’s hunger strike, deeply disturbing him. He then ended the strike and addressed the public, urging them to stop the violence.
With the court’s permission, Sibal played the video in open court. He argued that the speech did not threaten public order or national security and did not indicate any intent to continue prejudicial activities. On the contrary, he said, the speech was aimed at quelling violence and was consistent with national unity and integrity, drawing a parallel with Gandhi’s decision to suspend the Non-Cooperation Movement after the Chauri Chaura incident.
Sibal also submitted that the hunger strike was not an individual act by Wangchuk but a collective decision of the organisation he was associated with, undertaken in the spirit of satyagraha and non-violence. He pointed to other videos where Wangchuk could be heard emphasising that the movement would not involve violence and would instead rely on peaceful means.
According to the defence, the authorities perversely treated Wangchuk’s conduct as evidence that violence would continue unless he was detained, while ignoring the fact that he had explicitly called for peace. Such selective reliance on material, he argued, amounted to malice and independently vitiated the detention order.
The Home Ministry, in an earlier statement, had accused Wangchuk of inciting people, alleging that a mob instigated by his provocative speeches attacked political and government offices on 24 September 2025, injuring security personnel and damaging public property. The government has maintained that the detention was necessary to prevent further disturbances.
The Supreme Court will continue the hearing matter on 12 January 2026 at 2pm.
[DS]
Suggested Reading: