Supreme Court To Continue Hearing On Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention

The Supreme Court will continue hearing the petition challenging the detention of Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA) on Thursday. The Centre will likely advance its arguments in the matter.

Earlier, the apex court had orally asked the Union government to reconsider the continued preventive detention of Wangchuk, noting concerns over both the duration of custody and his health condition.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, which described the detention as ‘illegal’ and an arbitrary exercise violating his fundamental rights.

During the proceedings, the Justice Aravind Kumar-led Bench observed that Wangchuk has remained in custody since September 26, 2025, and that medical reports placed before the court indicated his health was ‘certainly not very good’.

Court Asks Centre to Reconsider Detention

The Bench suggested to Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj that the government should ‘give it a thought’ on whether the continuation of Wangchuk’s detention was necessary.

In response, the ASG assured the court that he would seek instructions from the authorities.

Defending the detention, ASG Nataraj said that the National Security Act serves as a special law for preventive purposes. He told the court that the NSA is meant to prevent a person from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order or the security of the state and that ‘preventive detention is not punishment’, but is based on the discretion of the detaining authority.

He further added that the District Magistrate had passed the order after objectively assessing the material on record.

The ASG further argued that Wangchuk’s speech delivered on September 24, 2025, was provocative and led to violent protests in Leh, resulting in four deaths and injuries to 161 people. He also contended that the petitioner challenged the original detention order but did not challenge the subsequent orders.

The Bench, however, indicated that if the foundation of the detention order was legally flawed, subsequent approvals would not sustain it, observing that quashing the detention would invalidate all later actions.