New Delhi: The Supreme Court will continue to hear the government’s arguments in the petition filed against the detention of Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).
Earlier on Wednesday, the apex court orally asked the Centre to reconsider the continued preventive detention of Sonam Wangchuk under the NSA.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, which termed his detention “illegal” and an “arbitrary exercise violating his fundamental rights”.
During the hearing, the Justice Aravind Kumar-led bench observed that Wangchuk had been in custody since September 26, 2025, and that the medical reports placed before the apex court indicated his health was “certainly not very good”.
It was suggested to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj that the government should “give it a thought” as to whether there was a possibility of rethinking the continuation of Wangchuk’s detention.
In response, ASG Nataraj assured the Supreme Court that he would seek instructions from the authorities.
Defending the detention, he argued that the NSA is a special law enacted for preventive purposes.
“The NSA is meant to prevent a person from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order or the security of the state. Preventive detention is not punishment. It is based on the discretion of the detaining authority,” he told the apex court, adding that the District Magistrate had passed the order after objectively assessing the materials placed before him.
ASG Natraj submitted that Wangchuk’s speech, delivered on September 24, 2025, was provocative in nature and triggered violent protests in Leh, resulting in four deaths and injuries to 161 people. He further contended that while Wangchuk had challenged the original detention order, he had not assailed subsequent orders.
However, the Justice Aravind Kumar-led Bench indicated that if the very foundation of the detention order was found to be legally deficient, including on grounds of non-application of mind, subsequent approvals would not independently sustain it.
The Supreme Court remarked that if the detention order is quashed, all subsequent actions would stand invalidated. In an earlier hearing, the bench noted Wangchuk’s health concerns and ordered a specialist from a government hospital to examine him, with the medical report submitted in a sealed cover.
(IANS)
