New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India is scheduled to hear on Monday a plea filed by Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of jailed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention under the stringent National Security Act (NSA). The plea, which seeks the quashing of Wangchuk’s preventive detention, contends that the order is “illegal and an arbitrary exercise violating his fundamental rights,” and demands immediate intervention from the apex court.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria is likely to take up the matter. The case has already seen multiple adjournments. On November 24, the Supreme Court had deferred hearing after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing both the Centre and the Union Territory of Ladakh, requested time to respond to Angmo’s rejoinder. Earlier, on October 29, the top court had sought responses from the Union government and the Ladakh administration regarding an amended plea filed by Angmo.

The amended plea presents a detailed argument asserting that the detention order against Wangchuk is founded on outdated FIRs, vague allegations, and speculative assertions, none of which establish any live or proximate connection to the purported grounds for detention. “Such arbitrary exercise of preventive powers amounts to a gross abuse of authority, striking at the core of constitutional liberties and due process,” the plea stated, emphasizing that the detention order should be quashed.

Angmo’s petition highlights the exemplary contributions of Sonam Wangchuk over three decades, both nationally and internationally, in the fields of grassroots education, innovation, and environmental conservation, particularly in the ecologically fragile region of Ladakh. The plea underscores that it is entirely “preposterous” that a figure of Wangchuk’s stature and recognition would suddenly be targeted by the authorities.

The events leading to his detention are linked to violence in Leh on September 24, when protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh escalated into violent clashes, resulting in four fatalities and nearly 90 injuries in the Union Territory. Wangchuk has consistently denied any involvement, and the plea stresses that the protests cannot be attributed to his actions or statements in any manner. According to Angmo, Wangchuk himself condemned the violence on his social media handles, describing the events as the “saddest day of his life,” and reiterated that violence would undermine Ladakh’s “tapasya,” referring to the community’s long-standing peaceful efforts and the five-year peaceful pursuit of development and autonomy.

The National Security Act, under which Wangchuk was detained on September 26, two days after the violent protests, empowers both the Centre and state governments to detain individuals to prevent them from acting in a manner considered “prejudicial to the defence of India, the security of the state, or the maintenance of public order.” While the maximum permissible period of detention under the NSA is 12 months, authorities have the discretion to revoke the detention earlier. Critics of Wangchuk’s detention argue that such preventive powers are being applied without concrete or proximate justification, raising concerns about misuse and infringement of civil liberties.

The plea filed by Gitanjali Angmo paints a picture of Wangchuk as an activist and innovator with a clean track record, who has devoted his life to environmental protection and education in remote regions of Ladakh. His contributions include pioneering innovative school models, creating adaptive technologies for local communities, and promoting sustainable practices in ecologically sensitive zones. The petition emphasizes that these longstanding positive contributions make the detention even more arbitrary, as Wangchuk has consistently engaged in lawful, peaceful, and socially constructive activities.

Legal experts observing the case note that the Supreme Court’s hearing will likely focus on the constitutionality and proportionality of preventive detention under the NSA, particularly in cases where the accused has a long-standing public service record and where allegations are based primarily on indirect associations rather than direct evidence. The petition argues that preventive detention in such circumstances not only infringes on Wangchuk’s fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, freedom of speech, expression, and protection of life and personal liberty, but also sets a dangerous precedent for targeting activists and public figures involved in social and environmental advocacy.

The government, on its part, has accused Wangchuk of inciting the September 24 protests, claiming that his statements and advocacy efforts contributed to public unrest. Authorities maintain that the detention was necessary to prevent further escalation and maintain law and order in the Union Territory. However, Angmo’s plea challenges this assertion, contending that Wangchuk’s involvement in the protests was non-violent and indirect at most, and that the detention constitutes a misuse of preventive powers.

The case is drawing national attention due to Sonam Wangchuk’s profile as an educationist and environmentalist. Known internationally for his work in creating innovative schooling systems in the Himalayas and promoting sustainable development projects, Wangchuk’s detention has sparked debate about the balance between national security and civil liberties, especially in regions with ongoing social and political unrest. Human rights organizations have expressed concern over the preventive detention, highlighting the importance of judicial oversight to prevent arbitrary use of laws like the NSA.

If the Supreme Court rules in favor of Wangchuk, it could set a precedent regarding the limits of preventive detention, particularly in cases involving activists and public figures whose alleged involvement in unrest is indirect or speculative. Legal analysts suggest that the court may examine the evidence, timing, and proportionality of the detention to determine whether it meets constitutional standards and principles of due process.

Meanwhile, public discourse around the case underscores the tension between state security measures and the protection of individual freedoms. Preventive detention laws such as the NSA are designed to maintain public order, but critics argue that their broad application can stifle dissent and target voices of advocacy, particularly when the individuals involved have a significant record of lawful social contributions. Wangchuk’s case exemplifies these concerns, as his work in Ladakh has consistently aimed at community development, education, and environmental sustainability.

As the Supreme Court prepares to hear the matter on Monday, all eyes will be on how the judiciary addresses the delicate balance between preventive detention and fundamental rights. Observers anticipate arguments from both sides regarding whether the detention order was justified under law or represents an overreach by the authorities. The outcome of this hearing will have implications not only for Wangchuk but also for the broader discourse on the use of preventive detention in India, the protection of activists, and the legal safeguards available against arbitrary government action.

In conclusion, the hearing scheduled for Monday marks a critical juncture in Sonam Wangchuk’s ongoing legal battleagainst his detention under the NSA. The plea filed by his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, underscores the alleged arbitrariness of the detention, challenges the factual and legal basis of the authorities’ claims, and calls for judicial intervention to uphold constitutional liberties. The Supreme Court’s ruling will be closely monitored, given the national and international prominence of Wangchuk’s work and the broader implications for civil liberties and preventive detention laws in India.