Senior advocate Kapil Sibal said Sonam Wangchuk’s calls for non-violence have been “misrepresented” for calls for violence. Photo Credit: Illustration: R. Rajesh
Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk on Monday (January 12, 2026) said in the Supreme Court that far-removed and unconnected events, vague aspersions, misrepresentation of facts and mechanical application of mind by authorities formed the basis and reason for his detention on September 26 last year after protests for Statehood to Ladakh took a violent turn resulting in multiple deaths.
Appearing before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for Mr. Wangchuk and his wife Gitanjali Angmo, submitted that the detention order was a mere “copy-paste” of the request made by authorities for his custody.
“Application of mind by the detaining authority should be independent of the material provided to it by the authorities proposing it,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
Also read:On Sonam Wangchuk and the National Security Act
Justice Varale paraphrased the submission, saying “mere reiteration of grounds [for detention] would not amount to satisfaction of the mind [of the detaining authority]”.
“Yes, in such cases it is the mind of the proposing authority and not that of the authority looking into the material. The authority which has the power to pass the detention order is supposed to independently and fairly apply its mind to the material provided to it to justify the proposal for detention,” Mr. Sibal submitted.
He said the proposal for detention cited events dating back to March 2024 and May 2024 for justifying Mr. Wangchuk’s detention in September 2025. His calls for non-violence have been “misrepresented” for calls for violence.
Mr. Sibal questioned the legality of Section 5A of the National Security Act, 1980 which allows the “severability” of grounds for detention under the statute. That is, a detention under the 1980 Act would not become invalid if one or some grounds for a person’s confinement was found to be vague, non-existent, irrelevant to the detainee or the case against him, neither connected nor proximate to the detainee or invalid.
In short, a detention order would remain operative even if a majority of the grounds for seeking his custody turned out to be invalid.
‘Detention all-pervasive’
The senior lawyer said the statutory provision virtually made detention all-pervasive, and affected the detainee’s constitutional right to an effective representation under Article 22(5). It was as if the statute was thinking for the detaining powers, Mr. Sibal submitted.
“My constitutional right cannot be trammelled by a statute. The interpretation of Section 5A must be consistent with Article 22 of the Constitution.
Article 22 provides two crucial rights to detainees – the right to be informed about the grounds of detention as soon as possible and the right to be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation (legal defense) against the detention order.
Mr. Wangchuk was detained a couple of days after the violence, and shifted to the Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan.
In an earlier hearing of the petition challenging the detention order, Mr. Sibal had submitted the videos of Mr. Wangchuk’s calls to end the violence were not given to the detaining authority by the local authorities. The senior counsel had contended that the attempt to overlook or even cast aside evidence favourable to the detainee pointed to deliberate malice, thus colouring the detention.
Published – January 12, 2026 10:39 pm IST
