The Supreme Court on Wednesday adjourned to January 8 the hearing of a petition challenging the detention of noted climate activist and educationist Sonam Wangchuk under the stringent National Security Act (NSA). The plea has been filed by his wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, who has alleged that Wangchuk’s detention is illegal, arbitrary, and a grave violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P. B. Varale deferred the matter after indicating that it would be taken up the following day. During the brief hearing, Justice Kumar observed that one of the judges wished to go through the case papers in detail before proceeding. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who is representing Wangchuk, agreed to the court’s suggestion, leading to the adjournment.

The matter had earlier been heard by a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N. V. Anjaria. Over the past few months, the case has seen multiple adjournments, largely owing to requests from the government to file responses to the amended plea and subsequent rejoinders.

Background of the case

Sonam Wangchuk, widely known for his work in alternative education, sustainable development, and environmental conservation in Ladakh, was detained under the NSA on September 26, 2025. His detention came two days after violent protests erupted in the Union Territory, during which demonstrators demanded statehood for Ladakh and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The unrest left four people dead and at least 90 others injured, prompting a strong security response from the administration.

The government accused Wangchuk of inciting the violence, an allegation strongly denied by his family and legal team. Wangchuk has long been associated with peaceful activism and is best known nationally and internationally for initiatives such as the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL) and for advocating climate-resilient solutions in the fragile Himalayan region.

The Supreme Court proceedings so far

On October 29, the Supreme Court sought responses from the Centre and the Ladakh administration on an amended petition filed by Angmo. Subsequently, on November 24, the court again deferred the hearing after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Union Territory of Ladakh, sought time to respond to a rejoinder submitted by Angmo.

With the matter now listed for January 8, the court is expected to hear substantive arguments on the legality of Wangchuk’s preventive detention and the grounds cited by the authorities to justify the invocation of the NSA.

Grounds of challenge

In her plea, Angmo has mounted a detailed constitutional challenge to the detention order. She has contended that the order is based on “stale FIRs, vague imputations, and speculative assertions” and lacks any “live or proximate connection” to the alleged grounds of detention.

According to the petition, the detention does not meet the legal threshold required for preventive custody under the NSA. It argues that the material relied upon by the authorities neither establishes an imminent threat to public order nor justifies the extraordinary curtailment of personal liberty.

“Such arbitrary exercise of preventive powers amounts to gross abuse of authority, striking at the core of constitutional liberties and due process,” the plea states. It further asserts that the detention order is liable to be quashed as it violates Articles 14, 19, and 21 of the Constitution, which guarantee equality before law, fundamental freedoms, and the right to life and personal liberty.

Wangchuk’s public standing and past conduct

A central theme of Angmo’s petition is Wangchuk’s long public record. She has argued that it is “wholly preposterous” to suggest that Wangchuk, who has spent more than three decades working for grassroots education, innovation, and environmental protection, would suddenly engage in or encourage violence.

The plea points out that Wangchuk has been recognised at the state, national, and international levels for his contributions, and that his activism has consistently emphasised non-violence, dialogue, and democratic engagement. Against this backdrop, the allegation that he incited violent protests, Angmo argues, is not only unfounded but also contrary to his publicly stated positions.

Response to the violence in Leh

Addressing the events of September 24, when violence broke out in Leh, the plea categorically states that these incidents cannot be attributed to Wangchuk “in any manner whatsoever.” Angmo has highlighted that Wangchuk himself condemned the violence soon after it occurred, using his social media platforms to urge calm and reiterate his commitment to peaceful protest.

According to the petition, Wangchuk described the violence as the “saddest day” of his life and warned that such actions would undermine Ladakh’s years-long peaceful struggle, which he referred to as a “tapasya.” The plea argues that these statements clearly demonstrate his opposition to violence and his insistence on non-violent methods of protest.

The National Security Act and its implications

The NSA is one of India’s most stringent preventive detention laws. It empowers the Centre and state governments to detain individuals if they believe such detention is necessary to prevent acts “prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India.” Detention under the Act can extend up to 12 months, though it may be revoked earlier if the government chooses to do so.

Critics of the NSA have long argued that its broad and subjective provisions make it vulnerable to misuse. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that preventive detention is an exceptional measure and must be exercised with extreme caution, as it bypasses the usual safeguards of criminal law, including the requirement of a trial.

In Wangchuk’s case, his wife’s plea contends that these safeguards have been ignored and that the detention order fails to satisfy even the minimum standards laid down by constitutional jurisprudence.

Wider implications and public interest

The detention of Sonam Wangchuk has sparked concern among environmentalists, educators, civil society groups, and political leaders across the country. Many view the case as emblematic of a broader tension between the state’s use of security laws and the rights of peaceful activists, particularly in sensitive regions like Ladakh.

The outcome of the Supreme Court hearing is likely to have implications beyond the individual case, especially in terms of how preventive detention laws are applied in the context of protest movements and political dissent.

As the matter comes up for hearing on January 8, all eyes will be on the Supreme Court to see how it balances the state’s claims of national security against the individual’s right to liberty, due process, and peaceful expression. For now, Sonam Wangchuk remains in detention, while his family and supporters await judicial scrutiny of a case that has become a focal point of debate on constitutional freedoms in contemporary India.