SC asks Centre to rethink Sonam Wangchuk's detention
text_fields
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has asked the Union government to reconsider the continued detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, noting concerns about his health after nearly five months in custody.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P. B. Varale raised the issue while hearing a plea filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, who has challenged his arrest on September 26, 2025. Wangchuk was taken into custody following protests demanding statehood for Ladakh, its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and other long-standing demands, which later turned violent. He is currently lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan, around 1,400 km from his home in Leh, the Wire reported.
Angmo had sought directions for a medical examination by a specialist after Wangchuk complained of recurring stomach pain, along with a request for regular health updates. The court had earlier directed jail authorities to ensure that he is examined by a specialist from a government hospital.
During the hearing, the bench observed that the detention order had been in force for nearly five months and said Wangchuk’s health condition and age-related factors warranted reconsideration. The judges asked whether the government could rethink the decision to continue his detention in light of these circumstances.
Additional Solicitor General K. M. Nataraj told the court that the matter was also a concern for the government and said he would seek instructions. He further submitted that Wangchuk had not challenged subsequent orders of the state government and the advisory board that upheld the detention order issued by the Leh district magistrate. Nataraj added that the National Security Act provides for multiple levels of scrutiny after a detention order is passed to ensure fair treatment of the detainee.
The bench, however, observed that if the original detention order was found to be legally flawed, it could be set aside along with all subsequent confirmations by the state and the advisory board. The court cautioned against accepting arguments that would allow an invalid order to survive, describing such reasoning as potentially dangerous. While Nataraj maintained that a detention could still stand if even one ground was valid, he was responding to submissions by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who argued that the order reflected a lack of independent application of mind and appeared to be a reproduction of police recommendations.
Earlier, the Union government had told the Supreme Court that Wangchuk had encouraged young people to take inspiration from youth-led movements in countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka if Ladakh’s demand for Sixth Schedule status was not met. The government also claimed that his references to the authorities as “them” and to the people of Ladakh as “us” were sufficient grounds to invoke the National Security Act.