© The Indian Express Pvt Ltd
Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Sonam Wangchuk Supreme Court hearing: Defending its use of the National Security Act (NSA) against climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, the Ladakh administration has told the Supreme Court that due process was “faithfully and strictly” followed. The affidavit, filed by the Leh district magistrate, said the detention order was passed after “subjective satisfaction” that Wangchuk’s activities were prejudicial to the security of the state and maintenance of public order, and that all constitutional safeguards were observed.
The officer made the remarks in an affidavit filed before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, in response to his wife Gitanjali Angmo’s petition challenging his detention under The National Security Act, 1980.
“The order of detention came to be passed by me after duly considering the material placed before me, as mandated under law, and after arriving at a subjective satisfaction on the circumstances that prevailed within the local limits of the jurisdiction where…” said the officer.
“Wangchuk had been indulging in activities prejudicial to the Security of the State, Maintenance of Public Order and Services essential to the community, as mentioned in the grounds of detention. I was satisfied and continue to be satisfied with the detention of the detainee.”
Though the matter was listed for hearing on Tuesday, it could not be taken up as Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk, was busy in another court. The court will now hear it Wednesday.
The Leh DM said when Sonam Wangchuk was detained on September 26, he was “categorically informed both of the factum of his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, as well as the factum of his transfer to Central Jail, Jodhpur, Rajasthan”.
“The said factum was also immediately communicated telephonically to his wife, Ms Geetanjali Angmo, through SHO, Police Station, Leh, which she has acknowledged in her petition… Therefore, all pleadings as regards the Detenue or the Petitioner not being informed of the Order of detention under the National Security Act, 1980, are completely false and misleading.”
As far as the communication of grounds of detention in terms of Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 and Article 22 of the Constitution is concerned, the DM said, “Procedural safeguards under Article 22 as incorporated in Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, particularly and the National Security Act in general have been faithfully and strictly adhered to.
“Without any delay and within a period of five days as is stipulated under Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980, the grounds of detention along with the material relied upon by me for arriving at subjective satisfaction were communicated to the detenue, thereby fully complying with the rigors of both Section 8 of the National Security Act, 1980 as well as Article 22 of the Constitution of India.”
“The detention order has been forwarded to the Advisory Board as required under section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980, by the Union Territory of Ladakh within the period prescribed under the said provision, along with the grounds on which the order is passed by me.”
He added that Wangchuk “has not made any representation as required under Section 10 of the National Security Act, 1980”.
“The petitioner has, however, sent a letter addressed to the Hon’ble President of India and neither to the Advisory Board nor to any of the statutory authorities. Under the scheme of Section 10 of the Act, only the detenue can make a representation. However, since a copy of the letter addressed by the petitioner to the Hon’ble President of India is marked to the Union Territory of Ladakh, the said letter is also placed before the Advisory Board. The Advisory Board has intimated the detenue in writing to make a representation if he so chooses within one week from the date of the intimation which is 10.10.2025.”
