Sonam Wangchuk's Wife Challenges NSA Detention in Supreme Court
Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk, presented strong arguments before the Supreme Court on Monday. She contended that the District Magistrate issued the detention order without proper application of mind. The order came under the National Security Act on September 26, 2025.
'Copy-Paste' Allegations Surface
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal represented Angmo before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale. He made a startling claim about the detention order. According to Sibal, the District Magistrate simply copied recommendations from the Ladakh SSP.
"These grounds are a copy paste of the recommendations," Sibal told the court. "No difference in language, nothing. The exact sentence, everything is the same." He described the detention order as having been "passed in a mechanical way."
Justice Kumar Seeks Clarification
Justice Kumar questioned the basis of this allegation. He asked Sibal how he could assert that the detention order grounds were cut and pasted from SSP recommendations. Sibal explained his position clearly.
He stated that the complete text of SSP recommendations was not furnished to the petitioner. They received only the first page on December 7. "That is word for word of the detention order," Sibal noted. "That's why we are assuming it to be copy paste."
Justice Kumar then asked if Sibal was contending that this copy-paste approach showed no application of mind by the detaining authority. Sibal answered affirmatively, saying "That's correct."
Previous Hearing Arguments
During the last hearing on January 8, Sibal had raised another crucial point. He argued that the detention order was vitiated because videos forming its basis were not supplied to the petitioner. This failure, he maintained, violated constitutional rights.
Sibal emphasized that settled law requires supplying not just grounds of detention but also documents relied upon in those grounds. Failure to do so goes against Article 22 of the Constitution, he argued.
Section 5A of NSA Under Scrutiny
On Monday, Sibal addressed Section 5A of the National Security Act. The detaining authority cited this section to contend that Article 22 is subservient to NSA provisions. Section 5A states that if a detention order has multiple grounds, it remains valid even if some grounds are problematic.
Sibal challenged this interpretation vigorously. "In normal circumstances, I would challenge this as unconstitutional," he stated. He questioned how a statute could presume what went through the detaining authority's mind.
"What is it saying?" Sibal asked about Section 5A. "If there are 5 grounds and one of them is irrelevant, it is deemed that detention was made on the other grounds?"
Constitutional Rights at Stake
When Justice Kumar asked about the legal proposition, Sibal was clear. He argued that Section 5A does not apply in this case. It cannot override the constitutional right to effective representation, he maintained.
"My constitutional right can't be trampled by virtue of Section 5A," Sibal asserted. He gave an example about videos. "If four videos are discarded, it doesn't matter - how can the statute say that?"
The hearing revealed significant legal questions about detention procedures. It highlighted concerns about proper application of mind by authorities. The Supreme Court will continue hearing this important case on Tuesday.
