NEW DELHI: In a significant development before the Supreme Court, the Central government and the Union Territory administration of Ladakh presented a detailed account on Monday regarding the detention of prominent environmental activist Sonam Wangchuk. The authorities asserted that Wangchuk had deliberately attempted to "instigate" the youth of Ladakh, encouraging them to launch protest movements modeled after the regime-toppling agitations witnessed in Nepal and Bangladesh.
Detention Under National Security Act
Wangchuk has been incarcerated since September of last year, following a period of intense and deadly violence that erupted during pro-statehood demonstrations in his native region of Ladakh. He is currently held under the stringent provisions of the National Security Act (NSA), which grants the Centre and state governments the authority to detain individuals to prevent actions deemed "prejudicial to the defence of India." The maximum permissible detention period under this act is twelve months, although it can be revoked earlier based on judicial review. Wangchuk is presently lodged in a prison facility located in Jodhpur, Rajasthan.
Supreme Court Hears Petition Challenging Detention
The apex court is currently adjudicating a writ petition filed by Wangchuk's wife, the noted social entrepreneur Gitanjali J Angmo, which challenges the legality and grounds of his prolonged detention. The hearing has brought to light the government's specific allegations against the activist.
Allegations of Incitement and Misleading Rhetoric
Representing the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta presented a forceful argument before a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and PV Varale. Mehta contended that Wangchuk had "carefully crafted his speeches" with the explicit aim of mobilizing Generation Z. He alleged that the activist urged the youth to undertake agitations similar to those that unfolded in Nepal and Bangladesh, while simultaneously invoking the speeches and philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi to "mask his true intentions."
"He also referenced ‘Arab Spring’-style movements that led to the overthrow of multiple governments in the Arab world," Mehta informed the court, emphasizing the perceived gravity of Wangchuk's rhetoric.
Creating a Divide and Calling for Referendum
The Solicitor General further leveled serious accusations, stating that the former educationist sought to create a deep-seated rift between the central government and the people of Ladakh. He claimed Wangchuk framed the narrative as "them" versus "us," portraying the government as an adversarial entity. "There is no ‘them’ or ‘us’—we are all Indians," Mehta asserted, highlighting the government's stance on national unity.
Mehta also told the bench that Wangchuk had called for a "plebiscite" and a "referendum," actions viewed with extreme concern given Ladakh's strategic and sensitive geographical position. "Ladakh shares borders with China and Pakistan, making it a very fragile region. His speeches must be considered in their entirety," he argued, stressing the need for a holistic assessment of the activist's words within the context of national security.
Invoking Gandhi While Allegedly Misleading Youth
A key point of contention raised by the Centre was Wangchuk's alleged selective invocation of Mahatma Gandhi's ideals. Mehta argued that while the activist referenced Gandhi, his intent was contrary to the Mahatma's principles. "He was allegedly misleading young people while selectively invoking Mahatma Gandhi, who never incited people against their own government," the Solicitor General submitted to the court.
Due Process in Issuing Detention Order
Addressing procedural aspects, Mehta detailed the steps taken by the district magistrate of Leh, the Union Territory capital where violence broke out on September 24, 2025. He stated that the magistrate had undertaken a meticulous review of all relevant materials before issuing the preventive detention order against Wangchuk.
"It took four hours for the detention order to be executed. After the district magistrate passed it, a DIG-rank officer briefed him and showed him videos of Wangchuk’s speeches, explaining the grounds for detention," Mehta noted, outlining the process followed by the authorities.
Rebuttal to "Borrowed Material" Argument
In response to the petitioner's argument that the district magistrate relied on "borrowed material"—evidence not directly witnessed—Mehta maintained that this line of reasoning was fundamentally flawed. He contended that the legal framework does not require the magistrate to witness every speech firsthand.
"Officials who heard the speeches recorded videos and submitted them as evidence. Based on these materials, the order was passed," he argued, defending the legitimacy of the evidence collection and review process.
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court remained inconclusive by the end of the day's proceedings. The hearing is scheduled to continue on Tuesday, where further legal submissions are expected from both sides.
