Did Sonam Wangchuk Say Ladakh People Won't Help Army? Asks Supreme Court; Sibal Denies

The Supreme Court today(January 29) passed an order allowing Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk to get examined by a specialist from a government hospital after he complained of frequent stomach aches. The Court has asked that a report of his medical examination be filed on or before Monday.The order was passed by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale in a habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo. She has challenged the detention of her husband under the National Security Act, 1980(NSA), as illegal. Wangchuk has been detained after the Ladakh protests for statehood turned violent in September 2025.Speech where Wangchuk appealed for peace not placed before detaining authority Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal today completed the arguments for the petitioner. At the outset, he argued that selective materials were placed before the detaining authority. Therefore, he could not apply his mind and arrive at a satisfaction. Sibal referred to the September 24 speech, where Wangchuk had broken his hunger strike and appealed for peace after the movement turned violent, which was not placed before the detaining authority. But the speech is there on the social media platform and is in the knowledge of detaining authority.He submitted that the non-consideration of vital materials impairs the objective satisfaction of the detaining authority to apply his mind. Moreover, proper construction of Article 22(5) requires that the service of the detention order is only completed when all materials are placed before the detaining authority. Therefore, striking at the very foundation of detention order and making his continued detention illegal.Adding to this, Sibal reiterated that the four videos(dated September 10, 11, and 24th) that form the most approximate materials to be relied upon have not been supplied to the detainee along with the grounds of detention. It must be noted that Angmo was furnished the grounds of detention on September 29, and Wangchuk was applied the grounds after 28 days of delay. Sibal said that Section 8 of the NSA requires that complete grounds of detention must be supplied. Detaining authority copy-pasted SSP's recommendation, detention order based on stale FIRs Further, he submitted that the detaining authority copy-pasted the recommendations of the SSP mechanically. Previously, he had argued that the detenue had the first page of the SSP's recommendation, which was verbatim in the detention order. Today, Sibal pointed out that now they have other pages as well, which clearly establishes that there has been absolutely no application of mind to arrive at objective satisfaction.Another point that Sibal reiterated today is that the detention order refers to stale first information reports, most of which are against unknown persons, contain no specific allegation against Wangchuk and date back to 2024. Three FIRs are of 2024 out of 5. Even the latest FIR lodged after the Ladakh violence, Wangchuk has not been named.S.5A requires independent groundsMost importantly, Sibal averred that Section 5A requires independent grounds of detention so that if some of the grounds become non-existent, others can be considered to make the detention order deemed to be based on others. However, in the present case, the detention is based on one ground based on materials through which the authority has tried to establish the chain of events. Since the ground of detention can't be severed, Section 5A has no application.Sibal explained that the detaining authority relies upon 8 videos, stale FIRs and mostly verbal statements through which they have established the conclusion that Wangchuk was a threat to the security and therefore must be detained. He pointed out that most of the videos have been selectively extracted to mislead the detaining authority.He relied upon Attorney General For India vs Amratlal Prajivandas(1994) to argue that Section 5 applies to separate acts of espousing violence, which must be proactive acts. "If there is a chain of events, and cumulation of materials and instances which ultimately leads to a detention order, it can't be treated as grounds of detention," he submitted.Wangchuk never said Indian army should not be helped during wartime, he appealed that politics should not be mixed with patrotism Sibal rejected the claim that Wangchuk has ever advocated for an Arab Spring-like movement and that he wants to overthrow the Indian government if Ladakh does not get the statehood as promised by the elected government. Sibal said: "What I had said, if the government does not have affection for all its citizens and care for the environment, violates the constitutional rights of indigenous people by not granting their rights, then such a government is an obstacle for the progress of that nation."Justice Kumar asked: "...they referred to an interview with a digital media where [you have said] that a region should go wherever they want to referendum. Sonam Wangchuk said that...

Did Sonam Wangchuk Say Ladakh People Won't Help Army? Asks Supreme Court; Sibal Denies

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags