Supreme Court asks Centre to “rethink” detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk

Supreme Court urges Centre to review Sonam Wangchuk’s detention in Jodhpur jail, citing his health deterioration and nearly five months of incarceration

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday told the Centre to “rethink” the continued detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, noting his nearly five-month-long incarceration in a Jodhpur jail and his deteriorating health condition since his arrest over violent protests in Ladakh last year.

climate activist Sonam Wangchuk was arrest on September 26, 2025

The suggestion by the court came in a petition filed by his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his arrest on September 26, 2025, over allegations that his speeches on statehood for Ladakh resulted in violence in which four persons died and several were injured.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale said, “Is there any possibility for the Government to have a rethink? The detention order was passed on September 26. It has been nearly five months. His condition of health is certainly not very good and there are other age-related factors.”

The Ladakh administration and the Union government were represented by Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj, who said that the government was equally concerned about Wangchuk’s health. As he was in the middle of his arguments defending the detention order, the court allowed him to take instructions in this regard and continue his submissions on Thursday. The court also called for the original file containing various official communications that led to the passing of the detention order.

It was recently that the court had called for a report on Wangchuk’s health condition in jail, which it kept in a sealed cover without disclosing the contents to his wife. While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared earlier this week, informed the court that the detenue was in the “pink of health”, the court, for the first time on Wednesday, revealed, “The report we saw shows that his health is not that good.”

His wife had moved an application claiming that he developed a severe stomach ailment due to unfiltered tap water used by him for drinking purposes. She requested the court for periodic monthly reports on his health and specialist care at the jail. The court had directed the jail authorities last week to ensure that a specialist doctor from a government facility examines him urgently.

ASG Nataraj told the court that Angmo’s petition should be dismissed as she had challenged only the detention order and not the subsequent orders passed by the Ladakh administration and the Advisory Board which confirmed it. According to him, confirmation of the detention order allows the person to be kept in jail for a period of one year, as compared to a situation where the lack of confirmation by the Advisory Board would result in the detention expiring within 15 days.

The bench told Nataraj, “If the detention order smacks of legal deficiency, can it not be set aside? The thrust of her argument is a challenge to the edifice, that is the detention order. If we accept their contention that the show-cause notice lacks application of mind and is violative of the principles of natural justice, it will go and all consequent orders (of the state and the Board) would also go.”

The court refused to be convinced by this submission and instead remarked, “If we accept your suggestion, we will be travelling on a dangerous path. One slip on that and you will fall into the gorge.”

Nataraj further stated that the grounds of detention should be seen in isolation and that even if one ground is made out, the detention would be justified. He referred to the objection made by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, that the order of the district magistrate for his detention lacked “application of mind” as it was a “copy-paste” of the recommendation made by the senior superintendent of police (SSP).

When the court sought to see the SSP recommendation to test the petitioner’s argument, it was not available. “We want to see the entire original file,” the bench said, as it posted the matter for further hearing on Thursday.

The petition alleged that the Centre had “cherrypicked” the relied-upon documents for oblique purposes and denied the activist his guaranteed statutory rights before detaining him under the National Security Act (NSA). It said that none of the FIRs related to the violence that erupted on September 24 named him as an accused, and the only FIR alleged against him was registered more than a month prior to his detention.

The Ladakh administration claimed that all these FIRs form part of a “chain of events” which are “directly traceable to the detenu’s continued public provocation” to justify his continued incarceration.

The Union Territory administration had earlier told the court that Wangchuk was detained after the district magistrate (DM) was “satisfied” that the activist was “indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the state, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community.” It stressed that “all procedural safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution and the NSA have been faithfully and strictly adhered to.”