The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Central government to consider reviewing its decision to detain climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale was hearing the plea moved by Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali J Angmo against his preventive detention. The Court told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre,
“Apart from submissions, counter submissions and law points, just give a thought to it, as an officer of the Court. The detention order is passed on 26.09.2025, nearly five months. Considering the health condition of the detainee…certainly not very good. The report which we saw earlier, it shows that his health is not that good. There are certain age-related, may be otherwise. Is there a possibility for the government to rethink, have a relook?”
ASG Nataraj said that he would put the suggestion to the authorities.
Wangchuk has been detained under the NSA following protests in Leh in September 2025 over demands of statehood and Sixth Schedule status for the Union Territory of Ladakh.
Angmo’s counsel last month contended that Wangchuk has a democratic right to criticise and protest against the government and that such sentiments do not threaten the security of the State to warrant his detention.
In response, the Union government and the Leh administration on Monday claimed that Wangchuk wanted the Union Territory to face an agitation and violence similar to what had transpired in Nepal and Bangladesh.
Wangchuk referred to the Central government as “them”, thus revealing secessionist tendencies, and instigated the GenZ (Generation Z, those born between 1997 and 2012) ) to indulge in a civil war, the government further alleged.
“He (Sonam Wangchuk) refers to the Central government as “them”. This “us” and “them” is enough for NSA detention. There is no us and them. We are all Indians,” it was submitted on Monday.
On Tuesday, the government said that all procedural safeguards were followed in passing the detention order against Wangchuk.
Arguments Today
Nataraj today argued that Wangchuk was responsible for last year’s violence in Leh.
“Four people died in the incident, 161 were injured also…ultimately, his provocative speech, provocation, instigation. The person need not actively participate, the propensity of person to influence a group of persons…that is more than sufficient [for preventive detention],” he said.
The ASG also argued that only the detention order had been challenged in the present case.
“The order of detention got approval by the state government on 3/10/2025. There is no challenge to the approval order or the confirmation order of the state government. The only challenge is to the detention,” Nataraj said.
He also submitted that an Advisory Board had given its report on Wangchuk’s detention.
“The advisory board travelled to Jodhpur, he (Wangchuk) had participated in the proceedings, he gave a representation, there was no denial of opportunities that could be extended to him. And after examining all the aspects, the advisory board has given a report.”
At this point, the Court asked whether detention cannot be challenged without assailing the confirmation order or the report of Advisory Board.
“Assuming that the [Sections] 3(4) and 12 [of NSA Act] orders are not challenged. But if the very detention order suffers from legal deficiencies, can it not be set aside? Suppose show case notice issued. Original order is passed by authority. That is challenged in appeal. If show cause notice is challenged on no jurisdiction, no application of mind, etc if the show cause notice goes, all the subsequent things go. The challenge to the detention order is with regard to non-application of mind,” it said.
The Court observed that the petitioner’s arguments were on the very foundation of the detention order.
Continuing with his submissions, ASG Nataraj said that the NSA was a special Act and that any detention under it cannot be construed as a penal law.
“It is only a preventive law. It is only to prevent somebody from acting in any manner prejudicial to the maintenance of public order or security of the state. The preventive detention is not punitive detention. It has to be necessarily left to the discretion of the executing authority. It is purely discretionary,” the senior counsel said.
However, the Court remarked that the discretion should be within the parameters of law.
“If somebody says I see him as a potential threat and therefore I detain him, by itself would not be sufficient,” it said.
Nataraj responded that there has to be an objective assessment. The Court said that the objective assessment has to be on the basis of subjective material.
The ASG said that based on various materials placed before him, the district magistrate was convinced and passed the detention order.
“A particular para may be good or may not be good. That will not vitiate the entire detention order. It comes under Section 5 which saves it under the principle of severalty,” Nataraj said.
The Court, however, said that if the grounds have a proximity link, then there will not be any severalty.
