How Supreme Court Dealt With Sonam Wangchuk's Detention: A Look At Questions Posed During Hearing

The Union Government on March 14 revoked the detention of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980, while his wife's habeas corpus petition challenging his detention was pending before the Supreme Court of India.During the hearing, the Court raised several questions to the Union Government regarding the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk's preventive detention.Wangchuk had been detained by the Leh District Magistrate on September 26, 2025, following protests in Ladakh demanding statehood that allegedly turned violent. The detention order alleged that he was “indulging in activities prejudicial to national security.” After his detention, he was shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail.His wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, moved the Supreme Court on October 3 seeking a writ of habeas corpus and challenging the legality of the detention. The Court issued notice to the Centre on October 6, 2025. The matter was heard on multiple dates.The case was scheduled to be heard on March 17 by a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale. However, before the hearing could take place, the Centre revoked the detention order with immediate effect, noting that Wangchuk had already undergone nearly half of the maximum detention period permitted under the NSA.We examine some of the key questions posed by the Court during the hearingCourt urged Centre to consider release on medical groundsAn application was made to have Wangchuk examined by a specialist physician after he complained of stomachache, reportedly due to water contamination. Allowing for an examination, the Court had asked for the medical report to be submitted. After perusing the report, the Court, on February 4, urged the Centre to review Wangchuk's detention since his health was not in good condition.The request was made by Justice Varale, who had said: "...give it a thought as the officer of the Court. The detention order was passed on 26/9/2025, nearly five months. Considering more particularly his health and condition of the detenue, which is certainly not very good. Even the report which we saw on the earlier occasion, it shows that his health is not that good, and there are certainly [other factors] age-related. Is there any possibility for the Government to rethink?"However, the Centre refused to allow his release on medical grounds, claiming that Wangchuk's health was fine and he was getting the best of the treatment. The Additional Solicitor General went to the extent of saying that it was only because of his detention that he was getting a better treatment at AIIMS Jodhpur, as "in Ladakh, there would have been nothing."Later, the Centre conveyed its decision that Wangchuk can't be released on medical grounds as it can't make an exception in a preventive detention matter. Centre reading too much into speeches : Court Throughout the hearing, the Centre alleged that Wangchuk wanted to bring an Arab Spring-like uprising to "overthrow" the government and incited the youth to self-immolate, as had happened during the uprising. It was also said that Wangchuk instigated youth to create “riot-like” situations, as happened during violent Gen-Z protests in Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. It was alleged that the reference to Gandhian non-violence was just a facade. Further, Wangchuk was alleged to have called for a plebiscite in Kashmir and said that Tibet under China and Balochistan under Pakistan enjoy more autonomy than what Ladakh enjoys. According to the Centre, he incited Ladakhis not to help the Indian army during wartime.Wangchuk denied that he supported an Arab uprising or self-immolation as a form of protest. It was explained that someone had asked Wangchuk what Ladakhis could do if Sixth Schedule demands are not met. In response to this, Wangchuk had given an example of the Arab Spring and self-immolation, and the recent movements in Nepal and Bangladesh, which people around the world have followed, and suggested that we should form a Gandhian form of non-violent protest. That is how they agreed on a hunger strike.It was also claimed that Wangchuk was told during the interview that someone had expressed that Kargil should go with Kashmir. In response, Wangchuk said that any region should go where it is happy. He asserted that he never asked the Ladakhis not to help the Indian army during war and had, in fact, said that political issues should not be mixed with nationalism.The Court repeatedly asked how all these speeches have a nexus with what happened on September 24, and how Wangchuk instigated all this. When it was argued that Wangchuk incited youth towards violent methods of protest under the facade of Gandhian ways of protest, Justice Kumar remarked that the Centre is reading “too much into” his speeches. Justice Varale said that Wangchuk had in fact shown concern that young people are abandoning the Gandhian ways of protest. Justice Kumar also told the SG at one point during the hearing : "If you say we don't ask any...

How Supreme Court Dealt With Sonam Wangchuk's Detention: A Look At Questions Posed During Hearing

Gursimran Kaur Bakshi

Tags