“Invitation to Indulge in a Kind of Civil War”: Centre Defends Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention Saying He Wanted to Replicate Arab Spring-Like Protests in Ladakh

Key Points

The Central Government, on 2 February 2026, defended the preventive detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), telling the Supreme Court that his speeches were designed to provoke unrest among young people in Ladakh, drawing parallels with the Gen-Z protests in Nepal and Bangladesh, and the Arab Spring.

Appearing before a Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that Wangchuk’s repeated references to such uprisings amounted to incitement, particularly in a region with sensitive international borders. He said the activist invoked Gandhian language on non-violence as a “facade” while embedding inflammatory content in his speeches.

According to the Centre, Wangchuk addressed “Gen Z” directly and encouraged political agitation. Mehta told the court that Wangchuk even referred to self-immolation as a form of protest, citing the Arab Spring, where governments were overthrown after violent unrest. The government’s position is that such references, in the context of Ladakh, raised serious concerns of public disorder and threats to security.

The Bench is hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by Wangchuk’s wife challenging his detention. Wangchuk was detained under the NSA on 26 September 2025, two days after violent protests in Ladakh over demands for Statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule left four people dead and around 90 injured.

The Solicitor General said Ladakh’s geography – sharing borders with China and Pakistan – made it a “fragile” and strategically critical area. He submitted that the region is crucial for supply chains supporting security forces guarding the borders, and that any attempt to create an “us versus them” narrative could undermine national security. Mehta told the court that Wangchuk referred to the Central Government as “them” while describing the people of Ladakh as “us,” and spoke of “plebiscite” and “referendum,” expressions previously associated with political demands in Jammu and Kashmir.

“There is no ‘them’ or ‘us’; we are all Indians,” Mehta argued, adding that such language revealed secessionist tendencies and was especially problematic in a border region. He maintained that the District Magistrate, after examining video recordings and other material, arrived at a subjective satisfaction that preventive detention was necessary to stop further prejudicial activities.

See Also: ‘Grounds for Detention Void’: Gitanjali Angmo Files Petition in SC Against NSA Charge on Sonam Wangchuk for Ladakh Violence

On procedure, the Centre said all safeguards under the NSA were followed. Mehta told the court that the detention order was explained to Wangchuk in detail by a senior police officer and that video clips of his speeches were shown to him at the time of service. He also contended that the detaining authority was entitled to rely on materials placed before it and did not need to witness events firsthand.

The government further argued that judicial review in preventive detention cases is limited to examining whether procedure was followed, not whether the decision was justified on merits. It said Wangchuk had been given fair treatment and had avenues to make representations before the Advisory Board.

Wangchuk, through his counsel earlier, denied that he had called for violence or an Arab Spring-style overthrow of the government. His side has argued that he has a democratic right to criticise government policies and that his speeches have been selectively interpreted and mistranslated. The plea, filed by Gitanjali Angmo, alleges that the detention order relies on “stale FIRs, vague imputations and speculative assertions,” and that relevant material, including his messages appealing for peace, was not placed before the detaining authority.

Angmo’s petition describes the detention as an arbitrary exercise of power that violates fundamental rights and due process. It claims that Wangchuk, known for decades for work in education, innovation and environmental conservation, cannot be linked to the violence that occurred in Leh. According to the plea, he had publicly condemned the unrest and urged peaceful methods.

The case centres on whether Wangchuk’s speeches, in the specific context of Ladakh’s security environment, justify preventive detention under a law meant to stop actions “prejudicial to the defence of India,” or whether the detention oversteps constitutional protections for speech and protest. The court has so far heard detailed submissions from the Solicitor General, with Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj expected to continue arguments on 4 February 2026.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: