Supreme Court summons Centre & Ladakh UT on wife’s petition challenging activist’s arrest
New Delhi / Leh, Ladakh : Monday, October 6, 2025
New Delhi / Leh, Ladakh — In a dramatic legal turn, the Supreme Court of India has issued notices to the Central Government and the Ladakh Union Territory (UT) in response to a habeas corpus petition filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA). The development comes amid mounting national scrutiny over Wangchuk’s arrest following violent protests in Leh that claimed four lives.
Background & Arrest: Protests Turn Deadly in Leh
On September 24, 2025, a protest in Leh, Ladakh demanding statehood for Ladakh and constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule escalated into clashes. Government offices and the BJP office were attacked, leading to security forces opening fire. Four civilians lost their lives and many were injured in the unrest.
Sonam Wangchuk, known for his activism around Ladakhi rights, had been leading hunger strikes and public agitation on these issues. During the protests, police alleged that “provocative speeches” by Wangchuk comparing mass movements in Nepal or Arab Spring kindled unrest.
On September 26, Wangchuk was arrested by Ladakh Police under the NSA. He was shifted out of Ladakh, later lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan. Authorities also revoked the FCRA licence of his NGO, SECMOL (Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh), citing alleged violations.
In Leh, following the unrest, security measures were tightened: a curfew was imposed, mobile internet services were suspended, and law enforcement ramped up presence.
Officials defended the action, arguing that keeping Wangchuk in Leh could stoke unhindered agitation. The Ladakh administration also claimed that he had “indulged in activities prejudicial to public order” and had impeded ongoing dialogues on statehood and Sixth Schedule protections.
Wife’s Plea — Into the Supreme Court
Deeply concerned about the secrecy and conditions of his detention, Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court on October 2, 2025. She challenged his detention under NSA, demanded disclosure of grounds of detention, and sought access to him.
In her petition, Angmo claimed that she had not been given a copy of the detention order, had no communication with her husband since his arrest, and was unaware of his health or condition. She alleged that the detention violated procedural safeguards and fundamental rights.
On October 6, the SC issued notices to the Centre and Ladakh UT, summoning them to respond. The court has reserved its schedule for hearing the plea when it reopens from vacation. The Wire+3The Indian Express+3The Times of India+3
The Legal Context: NSA & Preventive Detention
The National Security Act, 1980 permits preventive detention of individuals deemed to pose threats to national security or public order without trial. It allows authorities to detain a person for up to 12 months, subject to review by a three-member advisory board. It is not punitive but preventive in nature.
Wangchuk’s case is now under close legal scrutiny, as critics argue that the use of NSA against a political or dissenting activist raises concerns about misuse and suppression of civil liberties. Previous instances in Indian jurisprudence have seen the courts strike down or modify misuse of preventive detention laws.
Reactions & Stakes
The arrest has triggered widespread debate on freedom, dissent, and the role of security laws in democratic India. Civil society groups, media, and opposition leaders have decried the move as excessive. Some have pointed out Wangchuk’s past collaborative work with government agencies — including invitations to advise on environmental, education, and Ladakh development initiatives — contrasting today’s narrative of him as a security threat.
Supporters argue Wangchuk was exercising democratic dissent and legitimate demand for regional rights, while the administration frames his arrest as necessary to curb incitement and maintain public order.
International and national human rights bodies may watch the Supreme Court’s handling closely, as it could set precedents on how preventive detention statutes are wielded in politically sensitive cases.
What to Watch Ahead
- SC Hearing & Interim Relief: Whether the Supreme Court grants an interim stay, orders release, or demands fuller disclosure of grounds of detention.
- Centre & UT Response: The government’s response to notice, justification for detention under NSA, and whether it concedes procedural lapses.
- Public & Media Discourse: The shift in mainstream narratives — from protester to “security risk” — and public sentiment toward dissent suppression.
- Conditions & Transparency: Pressure may mount on authorities to allow family communication, medical access, and clarity on detention conditions.
- Wider Legal Precedents: The case may influence future uses of NSA or preventive detention in politically charged or protest-driven contexts
Source:
