'You Are Reading Too Much Into Sonam Wangchuk's Speeches' : Supreme Court To Centre, Questions Nexus With Ladakh Violence

The Supreme Court on Wednesday continued hearing the habeas corpus petition challenging the preventive detention of Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, with the Bench remarking that the Union Government appeared to be “reading too much” into his speeches.

The matter is being heard by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale on a petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo seeking to declare Wangchuk's detention illegal. The Court had recently urged the Centre to review the detention in view of Wangchuk's reported deteriorating health.

Centre: Health “Fine”, Grounds Sustain

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta defended the detention, submitting that Wangchuk's health was stable and that he had been medically examined 24 times in accordance with jail manuals. Mehta said there was “nothing to be alarmed” except minor digestive issues, and that exceptions could not be made in preventive detention matters.

Debate Over “Public Order” vs “Law and Order”

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj relied on precedents, including Ashok Kumar v. Delhi Administration and Ajay Dixit v. State of Uttar Pradesh, arguing that the distinction between “law and order” and “public order” lies in the effect of the act on the tempo of community life.

He submitted that even if actual violence had not directly flowed from Wangchuk's speeches, the test was the potential of his words to disturb public order in the region. “The very object is not to punish but to prevent,” Nataraj said, stressing that the detaining authority's assessment of ground realities deserved deference.

The Bench, however, repeatedly sought a clear link between Wangchuk's speeches and the violent incident of September 24, referred to in the detention order, where protesters allegedly burnt an office building and four persons were killed while several others, including police personnel, were injured.

“You Are Reading Too Much Into It”

During arguments, the Court scrutinised excerpts from Wangchuk's speeches relied upon in the detention order. The ASG contended that references to Nepal, the Arab Spring, self-immolation and non-cooperation movements amounted to instigation and subversive messaging.

At one point, Justice Aravind Kumar questioned the interpretation of a speech where Wangchuk had expressed concern that youth were moving away from non-violent methods. Justice Varale observed that the full sentence indicated he was worried about such departures from Gandhian principles.

“You are reading too much into it,” Justice Kumar remarked, suggesting that the government's interpretation stretched beyond the plain meaning of the speech.

The Bench also questioned how certain statements made months earlier, including references to Arab Spring-style movements, could be connected to the specific incident cited in the detention order.

When the ASG invoked Section 5A of the NSA to argue that each ground of detention was severable and could independently sustain the order, the Court asked him to identify specific grounds that directly justified preventive detention.

Reference to International Forums and Border Sensitivity

The Centre further argued that Wangchuk had attempted to internationalise domestic issues, made statements about referendums and plebiscites, and drawn comparisons between Ladakh and Tibet. Given the “border sensitive” nature of the region, such remarks had the potential to disrupt public order, it was submitted.

Nataraj emphasised that the District Magistrate, as the detaining authority, was best placed to assess the situation and that all statutory safeguards under the NSA, including review by an Advisory Board, had been complied with. Judicial review in preventive detention matters, he argued, was limited.

What is the nexus between speeches and violence?

Throughout the hearing, the Bench repeatedly pressed the Centre to demonstrate a proximate nexus between Wangchuk's words and the outbreak of violence. “How do you link it to the 24th night?” Justice Kumar asked on more than one occasion.

Towards the end of the day's hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that Wangchuk should not be compared with Mahatma Gandhi.

"I came because I was told that your lordships were pleased to read Gandhiji's [last] speech. I would like, after my learned friend completes, show the stark distinction between the speeches. Let us not glorify something which is completely anti-India with the father of the nation," Mehta said.

"Let it not become tomorrow's headline that your lordships compared the petitioner to Mahatma Gandhiji. Gandhiji never preached any [violence]. We will have to see the context. This health facade is also manufactured and synthetic [as] his social media facade...," the SG said.

The Court said that it was not concerned with what happens outside. It also clarified that its references to Gandhian speeches were confined to contextual comparison and not intended to draw parallels.

"See what we have said is how do you compare this with that. We are not concerned with what may come out elsewhere. We are making it very clear...Mr Solicitor, why are trying to make an ant out of the molehill? Why do you want to do it?...if you say we don't ask any questions, we won't ask any questions," Justice Kumar responded.

The hearing will continue tomorrow.

Case Details: GITANJALI J. ANGMO v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The writ petition has been filed by Advocate on Record, Dr Sarvam Ritam Khare