Sonam Wangchuk detention: SC seeks response from Centre, Ladakh administration on plea by wife to release him

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday issuing notice to  the Union government and the Ladakh administration, sought  its response on plea by  Sonam Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo seeking the activist's immediate release. The apex court will continue the hearing on Tuesday.

The apex court was hearing a plea filed Gitanjali J Angmo challenging the climate activist's detention under the National Security Act (NSA). The plea seeks Wangchuk's immediate release. Gitanjali J. Angmo, filed a habeas corpus petition against the preventive detention of her husband under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, following violent protests on September 24 in Leh.

The activist was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) on September 26, two days after protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union Territory.

Wangchuk had been spearheading the movement seeking statehood and Sixth Schedule protections for Ladakh. His lawyer, Mustafa Haji, visited him on Saturday along with his elder brother, Ka Tsetan Dorjey Ley. They gifted him two books — [In]complete Justice? The Supreme Court at 75 by Justice (retired) S Muralidhar and Why The Poor Don’t Kill Us by Manu Joseph.

Sonam Wangchuk's wife had asked the Supreme Court to direct the authorities to produce Sonam Wangchuk in court. She submitted that it has been a week since Mr. Wangchuk was reported to have been 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. She sought his immediate release.

Wangchuk's family in its petition argued that Wangchuk had consistently worked for strengthening national unity, and supported the Indian 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. No opportunity for representation was afforded. The detention was patently illegal, arbitrary, and unconstitutional.