Government Remains Committed To Foster Environment Of Peace And Stability In Ladakh: Centre Says While Revoking Detention Of Sonam Wangchuk

The Ministry of Home Affairs, today, has revoked the detention of Sonam Wangchuk with immediate effect, who was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, after the recent Ladakh protests turned violent.

This came in when the Supreme Court is seized of the plea of Dr Gitanjali Angmo, challenging the detention of her husband Sonam Wangchuk. The Court had issued notice in the matter on October 6, 2025.

The Press Release said, "The Government remains committed to fostering an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust in Ladakh so as to facilitate constructive and meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders. In furtherance of this objective, and after due consideration, the Government has decided to revoke the detention of Shri Sonam Wangchuk with immediate effect by exercising the powers available under the National Security Act."

Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) on September 26, two days after violent protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union territory. The government had accused him of inciting the violence. He was detained two days after protests demanding Statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh, which left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union Territory (UT) of Ladakh. He is currently lodged in the Jodhpur Jail, Rajasthan. His wife, in her plea filed through Advocate Sarvam Ritam Khare, has challenged Wangchuk's detention, besides seeking his immediate release. The plea also questions the decision to invoke the NSA against Wangchuk. Angmo alleged that she had yet to get a copy of the detention order, which is in violation of the Rules.

"In the backdrop of the serious law and order situation that arose in the peace-loving town of Leh on 24 September 2025, Shri Sonam Wangchuk was detained on September 2025 under the provisions of the National Security Act (NSA) pursuant to an order issued by the District Magistrate, Leh, with a view to maintaining public order. Shri Sonam Wangchuk has already undergone nearly half of the period of detention under the said Act", it said.

It also said, "The Government has been actively engaging with various stakeholders and community leaders in Ladakh with a view to addressing the aspirations and concerns of the people of the region. However, the prevailing atmosphere of bandhs and protests has been detrimental to the peace-loving character of the society and has adversely affected various sections of the community, including students, job aspirants, businesses, tour operators and tourists and overall economy." 

It added that it is committed to providing all necessary safeguards for Ladakh. "It remains hopeful that the issues concerning the region will be resolved through constructive engagement and dialogue, including through the mechanism of the High-Powered Committee as well as other appropriate platforms", the press release concluded.

Background

Sibal had argued that the most critical piece of evidence—a speech delivered by Wangchuk on September 24 where he explicitly called off his Anshan (hunger strike) and appealed for non-violence—was never placed before the detaining authority. He emphasized that this speech was the most "proximate event" to the September 26 detention order. Sibal pointed out that no violent activity was attributed to the padyatra (march), a fact he claimed the respondents have failed to deny.

When the Court inquired about the language of the speeches, Sibal confirmed they were in Ladakhi and raised a sharp objection to how they were handled. He specifically targeted the June 8 speech cited by the Solicitor General, asserting that the remarks attributed to Wangchuk were never actually made by him. Sibal contended that the Centre had relied on a "wrong translation" and had failed to respond when this error was pointed out. He argued that the detaining authority was misled by a transcript of a speech that simply did not exist.

The Court noted the existence of "two competing versions" of the speeches and stated that the Centre would be given an opportunity to reply to any additional citations or corrected materials provided by the petitioners.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal contended that the detention of Sonam Wangchuk was founded on "phantom" evidence and a total lack of independent thought by the authorities. He revealed that the Ladakhi speeches relied upon by the Centre contained fabricated, inflammatory remarks such as "self-immolation" and "overthrowing the government," which were entirely absent from the actual recordings. Sibal highlighted a glaring discrepancy where a 3-minute video was supported by a 7-to-8-minute transcript, leading the Court to observe that such a variance suggested "malice" in an era where AI offers near-perfect precision.

Sibal argued that the detention order was a mere "copy-paste" of the Senior Superintendent of Police's (SSP) recommendation. By juxtaposing specific paragraphs of the recommendation with the final order, he aimed to prove that the detaining authority had failed to exercise the mandatory "independent application of mind." He questioned the democratic legitimacy of detaining an individual for a peaceful anshan (hunger strike) aimed at holding the government accountable for its own manifesto promises regarding statehood.

Sibal further alleged a severe violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution, which guarantees a detainee the right to make an effective representation. He informed the Bench that Wangchuk was only provided a laptop to view the relied-upon video links on October 5, a day after the State Government had already confirmed the detention order. This delay, he argued, rendered the right to representation illusory. He dismissed the Solicitor General’s claim that the DIG had "shown" the videos to Wangchuk during service, asserting that merely showing a document is legally insufficient; the law requires all materials to be physically supplied to the detainee to ensure a fair defence.

The Court expressed significant concern over the "competing" transcripts and the variance in the duration of the evidence. The Bench has now directed the Centre to produce the actual transcripts to determine if the detention was indeed based on materials that "do not exist."

On February 11, 2206, the Centre submitted to the Supreme Court that it will be unable to release Sonam Wangchuk on medical grounds as he is doing fine and has no health issues except few digestive issues.

On the previous date of hearing, the Court orally suggested the Union of India to reconsider the detention order passed against Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk consdiering his age-related health ailments and issues, and that the earlier detention order was passed nearly five months ago.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj continued his arguments for the Centre, maintaining that it was the responsibility of the local officer to assess how an individual's acts would affect the "tempo of life" and to take a call based on that situation. He reiterated that the fundamental object of preventive detention was to prevent potential harm rather than to punish an individual for past conduct.

During the hearing, the ASG read from a compilation of judgments to support the principle that the commission of certain acts affecting the public tempo could serve as a valid basis for a detention order. When the Court noted that the order itself appeared to be preceded by specific past incidents, Nataraj explained that the detainee acted as the "chief provocateur" in violent protests and had instigated the youth by citing examples of unrest in Nepal. He emphasized that the detention was based on four separate incidents, arguing that each incident constituted an independent ground for detention. He concluded that under the law, even if one of these grounds were to fall, the detention order would remain sustainable on the basis of the surviving grounds.

Previously, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta concluded his arguments by reading excerpts from Sonam Wangchuk’s speech, where Wangchuk had noted that it was unacceptable for Ladakhis to be unable to choose their own representatives while areas like Tibet and China held autonomous rights. Mehta argued that such comparisons were particularly dangerous, coming from a border region. He utilized a "sandwich" metaphor to describe Wangchuk’s rhetoric, asserting that while the "bread" on both sides consisted of references to Mahatma Gandhi, the actual content in between served to instigate the public in a sensitive area bordering Pakistan and China.

On February 2, 2026, Mehta argued that the Court should not act as an appellate body over the subjective satisfaction of the District Magistrate (DM) regarding the necessity of detention. He emphasized that the DM had identified speeches that were likely to result in activities prejudicial to the maintenance of public order.

Mehta stated that the service of the detention order was conducted with meticulous detail over a four-hour period, during which the DIG of Ladakh sat with the detainee and showed him every page, including video clips, while the entire process was videographed. He expressed readiness to produce this video evidence before the Court if required.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued that the video of the speech on September 24, which openly appealed for peace, was not placed before the detaining authority. He contended that this omission prevented the authority from applying its mind to the full context of the events. He noted that despite the video’s availability, it remained unconsidered. Sibal cited Supreme Court precedents which held that the non-consideration of vital materials vitiates the satisfaction of the detaining authority and renders a detention order illegal. He further relied on a case regarding the construction of Article 22(5), asserting that the service of a detention order was only complete when all supporting materials were submitted to the detainee.

Regarding the non-supply of grounds, Sibal highlighted that four specific videos were not supplied to the detainee. He emphasized that one of the most important videos was missing, despite these materials being the primary evidence relied upon by the detaining authority to conclude that a chain of events justified detention. He stressed that the video covering the period when the detainee was on a hunger strike was the most appropriate material for his defence. Sibal argued that this failure effectively curtailed the detainee's right to make an effective representation.

On the previous hearing, Sibal submitted that Wangchuk was never provided the complete grounds of detention, and he was never afforded a real, effective opportunity at the earliest to make his representation to the appropriate Government under the Act. He further submitted that it is a clear violation of Section 8 of the Act and Article 22 (5) of the Constitution.

Sibal argued that although the authorities provided the grounds for detention and links to the relevant videos, the process was flawed. He noted that while a laptop was provided on October 5th, the flash drive delivered on the 29th was missing four of the critical videos.

Sibal submitted, "If the documents, as per the proposition of law, relied upon the grounds of detention are not supplied, the order is vitiated, which is upheld by this court in several judgments." Sibal then dealt with another propositions i.e. the recommendations for detention were not given to Wangchuk.

The Centre had opposed the request made by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk to appear through video conferencing from Jodhpur jail in the case. The activist wanted to be connected via video from jail and sought permission from the bench.

The Supreme Court also took on record the amended plea. On October 15, the Apex Court deferred the hearing on the plea of Angmo after she sought to file an amended petition with additional grounds for challenging the detention of Wangchuk, currently lodged in Central jail at Jodhpur, Rajasthan.

Click here to read/download the Press Release