Sonam Wangchuk News Highlights: Authority relied upon irrelevant material for detention, Sonam Wangchuk to Supreme Court

During the hearing today, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Gitanjali J Angmo, argued that there is a right to make representation not only to the advisory board but also to government. He further submitted that Section 5A of the National Security Act was not applicable in the case. Sibal argued that the grounds are simply a copy paste of the recommendation. He said that the material relied upon should have a proximate link to the detention order. He further argued that immaterial things were relied upon for detention.

Bench asks Sibal how much time will you take

Sibal: I will finish as quickly as possible

Sibal: You have to rely upon something that has proximate link to the detention. Immaterial things are relied upon for detention

Sibal: Many of the materials that have been relied upon are things that happened from March 2024 onwards and I was arrested in September

Sibal refers to the detention order

Bench asks for the proposition.

Sibal: It cannot be applied on the ground of effective representation.

Bench: You are contending that section 5A is not attracted?

Sibal: It cannot be attracted

He reads the provision which says, “5A. Grounds of detention severable.—Where a person has been detained in pursuance of an order of detention [whether made before or after the commencement of the National Security (Second Amendment) Act, 1984 (60 of 1984)] under section 3 which has been made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds."

and

accordingly—

(a) such order shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the

grounds is or are—

(i) vague,

(ii) non-existent,

(iii) not relevant,

(iv) not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or

(v) invalid for any other reason whatsoever,

and it is not, therefore, possible to hold that the Government or officer making such order would have

been satisfied as provided in section 3 with reference to the remaining ground or grounds and made

the order of detention;

(b) the Government or officer making the order of detention shall be deemed to have made the

order of detention under the said section after being satisfied as provided in that section with

reference to the remaining ground or grounds.

Sibal now refers to the National Security Act, 1980, Section 5a

Sibal now refers to Article 22(1) of the Constitution-

Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases

(1) No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.

Sibal to resume arguments shortly

Sibal tells the bench that he has been informed that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta will not be able to attend the hearing till January 26.

The bench will assemble shortly

Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) on September 26, 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.

Sibal had earlier argued that it was the constitutional duty of the detaining authorities to supply complete grounds of detention. He had said that the “infraction” was not that the detaining authority didn’t had these documents, but that they didn’t supply.

Wangchuk, booked by the Khaltsi Police Station in Leh District, Union Territory of Ladakh under Section 3 (2) of the National Securities Act, 1980, is accused of inciting violence in the region. He was leading a movement seeking statehood and protections under the Sixth Schedule for Ladakh before his arrest.

Defending its use of the National Security Act (NSA) against Wangchuk, the Ladakh administration had, in October last year, informed the Supreme Court that due process was “faithfully and strictly” followed. The affidavit 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 affidavit was filed in response to his wife Angmo’s petition challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980.