Sonam Wangchuk case: SC asks Centre to consider sharing detention grounds with activist’s wife, Govt says her plea was to create ‘emotive atmosphere’

The Supreme Court on Monday (October 6, 2025) orally asked the Union government to consider sharing the grounds of preventive detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk with his wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, even as the Centre said her habeas corpus plea was simply a ruse to create an “emotive atmosphere”.

Mr. Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980 following violent protests on September 24 in Leh. Ms. Angmo had asked the apex court to direct the detaining authorities to produce Mr. Wangchuk in court. She submitted that it was 10 days has since Mr. Wangchuk was reported to be detained at Jodhpur in Rajasthan on September 26. She said there was no information about the grounds of his detention or about the state of his health.

Issuing notice to the Centre and the Ladakh administration, a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria said “something has been done” for now. It posted the case for hearing next on October 14.

The Bench, in its short order dictated in court after a brief hearing, put the ball completely in the hands of the Centre and other authorities concerned to decide whether or not to share the grounds of preventive detention of the climate activist with his wife.

Sonam Wangchuk’s hearing updates – October 6, 2025

The court drew the attention of senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Ms. Wangmo, to Section 8 of the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. The provision required the grounds of detention to be communicated only to Mr. Wangchuk. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for both the Centre and the Ladakh administration, said the authorities had shared the grounds of his detention with Mr. Wangchuk immediately, and there was no further obligation under the NSA to share them with also his wife.

The Bench refused to take sides even as Mr. Sibal argued Ms. Angmo would be handicapped to argue the habeas corpus on behalf of her husband and prove his detention as arbitrary and illegal without knowing the very grounds for his detention.

“We do not know… But why are you being so technical, Solicitor General? See if you can give the grounds to her [Ms. Wangmo],” Justice Kumar responded.

At one point, Justice Kumar queried why Mr. Sibal’s client had not approached the High Court first instead of directly moving the Supreme Court.

“But which High Court? The detention is by the Centre,” Mr. Sibal reacted.

Senior advocate Vivek Tankha, also for Ms. Wangmo, urged the court to direct the detaining authorities to allow her to meet her husband. Mr. Tankha also raised concern about the medical needs of the climate activist while in detention.

The court ordered the authorities to provide Mr. Wangchul to whatever medical requirements he wanted and were permissible under the prison rules. The Bench asked Ms. Angmo to move the authorities for permission to meet her husband.

“She will get it [permission], if not you can approach us,” Justice Kumar addressed Mr. Tankha.

Ms. Wangmo has argued the detention was both malafide and designed to suppress democratic dissent.

Her petition said that along with the illegal detention of Mr. Wangchuk, a systematic, untruthful and false campaign was unleashed against him and his colleagues. It said this was done solely to harass and defame a peaceful Gandhian movement for the protection of Ladakh, its fragile ecology, its mountains, glaciers and the livelihood of its people. The false propaganda stigmatised dissent and portrayed environmental action as anti-national, the petition said.

It argued that Mr. Wangchuk had consistently worked for strengthening national unity and supported the Army through innovations such as high-altitude shelters and grassroots mobilisation in border areas. It said a copy of the detention order or the grounds for detaining him was not given or communicated to the family as mandated under Article 22(5) of the Constitution. eom