SC ‘Urges’ Centre to Reconsider the Detention of Sonam Wangchuk Under the NSA, Citing Health Concerns

Key Points

The Supreme Court, on 4 February 2026, asked the Central Government whether it could reconsider the continued detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), noting that he has been in custody since September 2025 and that his medical condition has raised concern before the Bench.

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale relayed the observation while continuing to hear a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his preventive detention. During the hearing, the judges referred to a medical report placed before them earlier and said the activist’s health required serious consideration.

“Considering the health condition of the detainee… The report, which we saw earlier, shows that his health is not that good. Is there a possibility for the government to rethink, or even relook?” the Bench asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre. Justice Varale also noted that Wangchuk had been under detention for nearly five months and urged Nataraj to “give it a thought” in light of his condition and age-related factors. Nataraj responded that he would seek instructions from the government, adding that the issue of health was a matter of concern for the authorities as well.

This follows an earlier order by the court, made on 29 January 2026, that directed Wangchuk undergo examination by a specialist gastroenterologist at a government hospital. Wangchuk had repeatedly complained of abdominal pain during his detention.

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

Centre Maintains Grounds of Detention Justified

The Centre, however, maintained that the detention was justified on grounds of public order and national security. Nataraj submitted that a speech delivered by Wangchuk on 24 September 2025 was “so provocative” that it ultimately led to violent protests in Leh. “Four people died in the incident, and 161 were injured. I will place the materials. Ultimately, his provocative speech, his provocation, his instigation… The person need not actively participate. It is the propensity of the person to influence the group of people or to commit somebody else to do a violent act. That is more than sufficient for preventive detention,” he argued. According to the Centre, the test is whether such acts disturb “the tempo of the life of the community.” Nataraj reiterated that preventive detention under the NSA is not punitive but aimed at preventing acts prejudicial to the security of the State and public order. He also relied on Section 5A of the Act, contending that independent grounds existed to sustain the detention.

Nataraj further stated that the detention order had been approved on 3 October 2025 and that Wangchuk had not separately challenged the subsequent orders of the State government and the Advisory Board that upheld the detention. He outlined the statutory scheme under the NSA, saying the District Magistrate’s order must be approved by the State government, after which the detenue has a right to make a representation before an Advisory Board headed by a former High Court judge. Even after the Board’s opinion, the State retains the power to continue or revoke the detention. Nataraj said Wangchuk had been given an opportunity to make a detailed representation through his wife and that the Advisory Board had travelled to Jodhpur for the purpose.

The Bench, however, indicated that this aspect might not be decisive if the foundational detention order itself was under challenge. Justice Aravind Kumar observed that the thrust of the petitioner’s case was that the detention order suffered from non-application of mind and procedural infirmities, and that if such contentions were accepted, the subsequent approvals would not cure the defect. The Court asked the Centre to produce the original records, including the recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent of Police to the District Magistrate, in response to allegations that the detaining authority had merely reproduced the police recommendation.

See Also: “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

Detention of Sonam Wangchuk

Earlier, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had argued that Wangchuk sought to instigate a “riot-like” situation in a sensitive border region and invoked protest movements in Nepal and Bangladesh, but Wednesday’s hearing focused substantially on the health aspect.

Wangchuk was detained on 26 September 2025, two days after violent protests in Ladakh demanding Statehood and Sixth Schedule status resulted in four deaths. He was subsequently shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail. The petition before the Supreme Court challenges his detention as illegal. In previous hearings, the defendant’s representatives argued against the detention primarily on procedural grounds, while also challenging its substance.

The matter is expected to continue after the Centre obtains instructions on the Court’s query regarding reconsideration of the detention in view of Wangchuk’s medical condition.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: