Hearing concludes for the day, matter to be heard further on Monday at 2PM
Sonam Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, under the NSA, following which his wife approached the Supreme Court.The Supreme Court on Thursday heard the plea filed by Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali J Angmo challenging his detention. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale heard the matter. The Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj appearing for the Centre informed the court that there was complete application of mind by the detaining authorities while detaining Wangchuk. He also submitted that after Wangchuk’s detention the agitation and violence came under control.
What happened in the previous hearing: During the course of hearing on February 11, the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta informed the court that Wangchuk is fit, hale and hearty. He further assured the court that there was nothing to worry.
This comes after the court had earlier asked the Centre if there was any chance of a rethink with respect to the detention of Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), given that his health is “not that good”.
The Additional Solicitor-General KM Nataraj appearing for the centre continued his arguments on February 11 highlighting Wangchuk’s alleged objectionable statements. The court remarked that the centre was reading too much into his statements.
What is the case against Wangchuk: Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, under the NSA, which empowers governments to act pre-emptively against individuals seen as a threat to public order or national security. He was later shifted to Jodhpur. His detention came two days after violent protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union territory. The government had accused him of inciting the violence.
Bench: This endorsement only refers to he received in a pen drive it is not disclosed in the endorsement that he had an occasion to see the video. If you have shown these videos then you could have drawn a statement to that effect and obtained his sign.
ASG Nataraj: For that there is a separate video
Bench: Anything to show that on 26.9.2025 that it was shown to him
ASG Nataraj: There is a separate video
Counsel for Angmo: The pen drive which was supplied to us mischievously didn’t have any of the 4 videos. We have repeatedly told them about it. We are not alleging non supply of the remaining videos. But the 4 videos referred in Annexure A were not there in that pen drive. The laptop was first supplied to us on 5th October when we realised the 4 videos are missing.
ASG Nataraj: 23 videos relied upon for detention has been supplied. All the videos which have been referred have been supplied.
ASG Nataraj: Finally see the situation in the border area where violence is erupting, national interest should be paramount for everyone citizen
ASG Nataraj refers to another judgment
ASG Nataraj: My submission don't equate it with the order of the courts. It has to be tested or examined with reference to the situation prevailed in a particular area
ASG Nataraj: This is not a copy paste of the proposal
Bench: Annexures, they don't sign. They don't put small signatures. Each page is not signed
Bench: SSP recommendation can't be photocopy, we need original
(Court is provided with the original)
ASG Nataraj: There is clear application of mind for passing the order of detention.
ASG Nataraj: Each activity is independent and each activity constitutes a ground
ASG Nataraj: Immediately after the detention, the agitation has come to control. If not for the detention order, it would have caused further damage
ASG Nataraj: The detention order cannot be equated with judgments of this court
ASG Nataraj: Single incident sufficient to pass detention order. We need not record each and every ground, every aspect of it.
ASG Nataraj: There are multiple activities mentioned in the detention order.
ASG Nataraj: On the basis of the situation prevailing there in that area, can we not come to a conclusion, a reasonable probability, that his detention is required? We have to sit in the armchair of the detaining authority to come to a conclusion
ASG Nataraj: Categoric expression in the detention order showing clear cut links of his statements to the agitation. There is a clear application of mind
ASG Nataraj refers to a case
ASG Nataraj: Either element sufficient to pass the detention order
ASG Nataraj: Detention order can be passed on suspicion and reasonable probability
ASG Nataraj: All these procedural requirements guaranteed to him have been meticulously complied with
ASG Nataraj: Only protection to detenu is procedural safeguards alone, nothing else.
ASG Nataraj: When all these documents have been furnished now the allegations are made that documents are not furnished. That is one of the grounds to challenged the detention order. However, that cant run contrary to his own document.
ASG Nataraj: The case is made out by saying that documents have not been furnished. All the documents referred to, relied upon have been furnished to him with acknowledgment.
Bench: We want to know whether what is being show in detention order whether that has been furnished to him
Nataraj: Yes
Senior advocate Tankha: Pious man, real Gandhian and thinks very spiritual. When other people spoke about uprising, he said no. ours is a non violent country, we have to go the Gandhian way.
Senior advocate Vivek Tankha (for Angmo): What is written in the detention order is different and the video is different.
The question was about whether Kargil wants to be Ladakh or Kashmir. People put this question to him. He replied saying if people wants to go to Kashmir they can go. This is the context. Nothing to do with India.
Counsel for centre: Mr Nataraj is on his legs.
Bench to hear the matter shortly
Bench: How much time will you take Mr. Nataraj?
ASG Nataraj: 30 minutes
Bench: You can come around 3 pm
Sonam Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali J Angmo also in court
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale will take up the matter at around 2pm today.


