'Sonam Wangchuk's Health Not Good' : Supreme Court Urges Centre To Rethink His Detention On Medical Grounds

The Supreme Court today(February 4) orally asked the Union Government to rethink continuing detention of Ladakhi social activist Sonam Wangchuk, considering his deteriorating health.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife Dr Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, as illegal. Wangchuk was detained on September 26 and brought to Jodhpur after the protests in Ladakh demanding statehood turned violent.

At the conclusion of the hearing today, Justice Varale asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj if the Union could rethink whether Wangchuk's preventive detention needs to be continued. It may be noted that Angmo had moved an application that Wangchuk may be examined by a specialist doctor after he complained of frequent stomach aches. The Court had allowed the application pursuant to which a medical report was submitted to the Court on last hearing.

Nataraj submitted today that the September 24 speech of Wangchuk was so provocative that it eventually led to the violent protest, which claimed the lives of four people.

"Four people died in the incident, and 161 were injured. I will place the materials. Ultimately, his provocative speech, his provocation, his instigation, which he has done. The person need not actively participate. It is the propensity of the person to influence the group of people or to commit somebody else to do a violent act. That is more than sufficient for prevention detention," he submitted. He said that the test is whether acts lead to disturbance of the tempo of the life of the community.

On this, Justice Varale 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?"

Justice Kumar also agreed with what Justice Varale said. Nataraj responded that it is a matter of concern for the Government as well and he will seek instructions.

Wangchuk did not challenge orders upholding his detention

Nataraj today argued that Wangchuk did not challenge the subsequent orders of the State Government and the Advisory Board upholding the detention order passed by the Leh District Magistrate. He stated that there are various screenings under the NSA once the order is passed by the detaining authority. This is to ensure that the detenue is given fair treatment.

He said the State Government has to approve the order, then the Advisory Board, headed by a former Judge of the High Court, hears a detailed representation, and even after the Advisory Board's order, the State Government has independent power to either continue or revoke detention. He pointed out that none of these orders has been challenged by Wangchuk.

"Original showcause notice has to be examined on limited parameters and competence," Nataraj said.

However, Justice Kumar responded that it may not be necessary, considering the fact that the very detention order was challenged. Justice Varale agreed that this may not be the case.

Justice Kumar responded: "See if the challenge to the detention order is with regard to non-application of mind, that is with regard to non-production or furnishing of the grounds and other things. Now, with regard to application of mind, that how do you justify? We have our own reservation for the present, subject to what you may say...26 is the detention order, 2.10, they filed the writ petition. State Government approved it on 4.10, notice on this writ petition was issued on 6.10.[25] and then you said that there is an order passed by the State Government. The petition was subsequently amended and brought some subsequent events to the notice of this Court. Now, her thrust of entire argument on the very edifice or foundation that the detention order itself is being challenged. For any reason, if we accept the contention of Mr Sibal, the order goes."

Justice Kumar asked if Wangchuk was given a representation on the Advisory Board. Nataraj said that he was given a detailed representation through his wife. He added the Advisory Board had infact travelled to Jodhpur for that.

The Court asked Nataraj to give original records of all the documents including the SSP's recommendation to the District Magistrate. The petitioner had argued that the detaining authority did not apply mind and merely copy-pasted the SSP's recommendation.

As for the other arguments, Nataraj reiterated that the object of the NSA is to prevent a person from doing acts prejudicial to the security of State/public order and the detention is merely preventive and not punitive in nature. He also submitted that Section 5A would apply to this case as independent grounds exist.

Earlier, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta had argued that Wangchuk wanted to instigate a "riot-like" situation in a place which shares a border with volatile countries and has its own regional sensitivity. He had argued that Wangchuk instigated a Nepal/Bangladesh-like Gen-Z movement. He had referred to the Indian Army personnel as "them" and wanted to create a 'them v us' separation.

Mehta reiterated that the safeguards provided under the NSA have been scrupulously followed. The Court has to only see if there are sufficient materials, and it does not have to go into the sufficiency of them. While reading Section 8(2) of the NSA, he said that the detaining authority can claim immunity from disclosing facts that are considered to be against the public interest.

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