New Delhi: The Supreme Court is slated to hear on Monday a plea filed by Dr Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of Ladakh-based climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his continued preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA).
As per the cause list published on the website of the apex court, a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale will take up the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Angmo, terming her husband’s detention “illegal” and an “arbitrary exercise violating his fundamental rights”, for hearing on February 9.
In an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had orally asked the Union government to reconsider the continued preventive detention of Wangchuk.
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 that his health was “certainly not very good”.
It was suggested to Additional Solicitor General 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, the ASG 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 material placed before him.
ASG Nataraj further 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 also contended that while Wangchuk had challenged the original detention order, he had not assailed subsequent orders extending the detention. 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.
(IANS)
