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 grounds

Most 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 if demand of statehood and the Sixth Schedule are not met, people of Ladakh would not help the Indian army during wartime has potential impact on security. Whether this has been said?

Sibal vehemently rebuked that this claim is false. He said, "That is the problem with this case. They have misled the detaining authority...it arises from a serious misunderstanding of the language gap or intentional distortion. Infact, the videos of such and such convey the exact opposite. There are clouds of war nowadays and experts have expressed that war could have anytime. In such times, soliders and civilians alike have to be ready and civilians are equally needed in such times. Sometimes one wonders if such things affects the zeal with which our civilians risk their lives to carry heavy loads. But we must not take out our grievances and grudges of our political demand on mother India. Please do not let this happen. Please understand that our fight is with a political party and please do not mix this with the defence of mother India. On the face of it, what is set out in grounds of detention is completely inconsistent."

He clarified that Wangchuk has said the contrary, that civilians are equally needed in such times, and the defence of India should not be compromised for politics.

He also clarified that another allegation is that he supported the plebiscite in Ladakh. Sibal said that in one interview, a question was put to him that someone had supported that Kargil should be merged with Kashmir and not Ladakh, and Wangchuk had said if they want to, they can. He said that the authorities deliberately misquoted that Wangchuk supported the plebiscite when it had nothing to do with it.

"What has this got to do with plesibite in Kashmir?" Sibal questioned.

Sibal also rejected another claim that Wangchuk had disrespected a Hindu goddess. He said that some IT cell people have deliberately falsely projected this of his interview with NDTV TV, and there are fact-check videos which had rebuked this. Sibal added that Wangchuk's wife is a practising Hindu and he has no reason to disrespect any God.

"Modi ji, you turned out to be like Ram who after bringing Sita out of the clutches of Ravan took her to the market rather than taking her home. It is submitted that this was a symbolic analogy meant to convey that after liberating Ladakh from Kashmir, the Central Government failed to extend to it the promise of constitutional safeguard under the sixth schedule," Sibal clarified.

Another clarification came regarding the allegation that during a Padyatra from Ladakh to Delhi, his protestors caused a Ladakh bandh. Sibal said that Wangchuk did not endorse, and he can't be blamed for the actions of a third party.

"In essence, here is a man who breaks a hunger strike, and this is his position on 24 September. How did he became danger to the security of India on 26 September? He did not participate in violence; he gave up his fast because some people committed violence, how does this result in his detention?," Sibal asked.

As for the application given by Sibal that Wangchuk should be examined by a specialist, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that he has been examined 21 times so far and was recently examined on January 26. So, it is not like he has no access to medical support. However, Justice Kumar pointed out that Wangchuk wants to be examined by a specialist and not by a general physician.

What has happened so far?

The writ petition filed under Article 32 is a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of Wangchuk, lodged in a jail in Jodhpur. The Union Government, Ladakh Administration and the Superintendent of the Jodhpur Central Jail are the respondents in the petition.

On October 6, when notice was issued, Sibal had argued that the grounds of detention hadn't been served to them. In contrast, SG Mehta submitted that there is no legal requirement for the grounds of detention to be communicated to the wife. Sibal had replied that he would not be relying on the non-supply of the grounds of detention to the wife as a ground to challenge the detention, and that he was seeking them so that the detention itself could be challenged.

The Leh District Magistrate filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court denying that the detention was illegal. The authority also stated that the grounds of detention were supplied to Wangchuk within the statutorily mandated timelimit and that he was yet to make any representation against his detention. The Jodhpur Central Jail Superintendent stated in a separate affidavit that Wangchuk's wife, brother and lawyers were allowed to meet him in jail.

In her additional grounds, Dr Angmo submitted that the detention order and grounds of detention are ex facie unsustainable in law as they are premised upon irrelevant grounds, stale FIRs, extraneous material, self-serving statements, and suppression of information. She also contended that she has yet to receive the complete grounds of detention. Angomo has submitted that Wangchuk was supplied with an incomplete detention order, and that too after three days after his illegal detention on September 29.

On October 15, the Court allowed Angmo to get access to the notes he had prepared to challenge his detention after SG Mehta did not object to it. The notes were supplied to the wife on October 16.

On December 8 2024, the Union Government had said that it will oppose a request made by Sonam Wangchuk to appear before the Supreme Court via video conferencing from Jodhpur jail in the hearing on the challenge to his detention under the National Security Act.

A request was made by Sibal, who submitted that Wangchuk wants to argue his case and that he may be allowed to appear via VC. However, SG Mehta had opposed this plea and reasoned that if the Union allows this plea, it will have to then accommodate all accused persons similarly situated.

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