"Nothing Alarming; Health Is Stable": Centre Opposes Sonam Wangchuk’s Plea Before Supreme Court Seeking Release On Medical Grounds

The Centre has 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. 

The Court was hearing the plea of Dr Gitanjali Angmo, challenging the detention of her husband and Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, after the recent Ladakh protests turned violent. The Court had issued notice in the matter on October 6, 2025.

The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the matter and listed the matter tomorrow (Feb 12) at 2 p.m.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared on behalf of the wife of Sonam Wangchuk, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj appeared for the Respondents.

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.

Today, SG Tushar Mehta submitted, "We have examined his health periodically...He is fit and hearty. He had some digestive issue; he is being treated. There is nothing to worry about, nothing alarming. We can’t make exceptions like this. The grounds on which the detention order was passed continue. It will not be possible to release him on health grounds. It may not be desirable, either. We have given utmost consideration."

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.

Nataraj said, "The violent agitation that took place in Nepal, he says, the same thing can happen in our country."

The court asked, "Where does he say that? Infact, he is saying they have taken it."

Nataraj replied, "It may be inferred. Please come to the next ground. He says that the deployment of armed forces in Ladakh is very unfortunate...He says youth say peaceful methods have not proved effective."

Justice Varale replied, "He is saying that the youth is saying that. You please read the complete sentence...Here he is saying this is something worrying...If somebody expresses that violent method as not the proper way...He says he’s worried! We will have to see the entire sentence. “Some people are abandoning the peaceful Gandhian ways… this is worrying”, the focus is that they are following Gandhian ways; if somebody is adopting a violent way, that is worrying."

Nataraj replied, "This is a hybrid expression."

Justice Kumar said, "Too much of reading into it."

Nataraj then submitted that the video clips relied upon by the authorities each constituted independent grounds for detention.

When the Court directed him to show the link between these statements and the events of September 24, 2025, the ASG pointed to earlier content. He noted that in a video uploaded to his YouTube channel on June 8, 2025, the detainee had made references to an "Arab Spring" style revolution and threatened self-immolation if his demands were not met. The ASG argued that these statements, including references to a plebiscite and sacrificing his life through an indefinite hunger strike, served as direct provocations. He contended that such rhetoric, combined with the instigation of others, was designed to incite violence and disrupt the "tempo of life" in the region.

Furthermore, the ASG highlighted that while stationed in a sensitive border area, the detainee had compared the domestic situation to that of Pakistan and China. He submitted that the detainee had warned the government of his extensive foreign connections and influence, asserting that he would leverage those international ties to resolve domestic issues—a stance the state viewed as a significant threat to national security.

SG Mehta submitted, "I was told that your lordships read Gandhiji’s last speech. Let us not glorify something which is completely anti-India with the father of the nation...Let it not become tomorrow's headline that your lordships compared the Petitioner to Gandhiji...With this health facade, also manufactured and synthesized followed by a social media facade..."

The Court replied, "We are not going by it. Why are you trying to make an ant out of a molehill? If you say that we should not ask questions, we will not ask."

ASG KM Nataraj emphasized the "fragile" nature of the situation in Ladakh, arguing that the detainee's videos, public statements, and hunger strikes served as the direct catalyst for widespread violence. He contended that the unrest, which resulted in four deaths, 160 injuries, and the burning of buildings, was a clear aftermath of the detainee's activities. The ASG maintained that if the detaining authority had not intervened with preventive action, the situation would have escalated significantly.

Nataraj further pointed out that the effectiveness of the detention was evidenced by the fact that the situation came back under control the moment the detainee was taken into preventive custody. He argued that the order had successfully achieved its intended purpose. In such volatile circumstances, he asserted, the detaining officer was expected to be fully aware of the ground reality and was not required to wait for further commands before taking a necessary call to preserve public order.

Concluding his arguments, the ASG stated that every statutory requirement under the National Security Act had been scrupulously followed and that no constitutional guarantees were breached. He submitted that because all checks and balances provided by the legislature were complied with, the scope for judicial review in this matter remained very minimal.

Background

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.

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.

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.

Cause Title: Gitanjali J. Angmo vs Union of India [W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025]