The Supreme Court on Thursday signaled that jailed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk could secure relief if it finds that key material relied upon for his detention under the National Security Act (NSA) was withheld by authorities. The observations came during the hearing of a petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his continued incarceration at a Jodhpur jail since September 26, 2025, following violent protests in Ladakh that left four people dead and several others injured.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale noted that if it is satisfied that material forming the basis of his detention was indeed suppressed, the Court may not need to delve into other arguments challenging the arrest. “Suppose we accept your first argument, we need not go into the other points,” the bench said, emphasizing the centrality of fair disclosure in preventive detention proceedings.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, highlighted that four videos, which formed the core justification for Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA, were not included in the pen drive provided to the detainee on September 29, 2025. Sibal argued that withholding such material violates established legal principles. “It is settled law that documents relied upon for detention that are not served to the detenu vitiate the arrest,” he told the Court.

The first set of videos, recorded in different dates in September 2025, were referenced in the grounds of detention, yet the authorities did not supply them to Wangchuk. To illustrate the discrepancy, Sibal played another video in court showing Wangchuk appealing for peace during the protests. He argued that this video contradicted the allegations in the detention order, explaining why it was not included. “The tenor of this speech is not with intent to harm the security and integrity of the country. Rather, it is consistent with the integrity and unity of the nation. They did not rely on this. This was also proximate material,” Sibal added.

Sibal also raised procedural issues regarding the Advisory Board hearings under Article 22 of the Constitution. He contended that not all documents were supplied to Wangchuk when he challenged his detention before the Board, and those that were provided were given too close to the hearing date, depriving him of adequate time to prepare a defense. “There has to be a time lag between supply of documents and the hearing of the Advisory Board. I must have enough time as that is a requirement under Article 22(5) of the Constitution, under which a maximum of 10 days should be provided,” Sibal argued.

Wangchuk, in his submissions and through his wife’s petition, has maintained that his arrest on September 26 was part of a deliberate and malicious campaign aimed at undermining his credibility. Authorities accused him of instigating violence during the September 24 protests demanding independent statehood for Ladakh. The Ladakh administrationdefended the detention, asserting that the “chain of events” leading to violence could be directly traced to the activist’s continued public provocation. They claimed all procedural safeguards under the NSA and Article 22 were “faithfully and strictly adhered to.”

The petition, filed by Angmo through advocate Sarvam Ritam Khare, argued that the detention violated Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution and constituted an abuse of preventive detention powers. It described the invocation of the NSA as “unjustifiable, disproportionate, and unwarranted,” highlighting the perceived misuse of preventive detention laws to curb political dissent.

During the proceedings, the Supreme Court underscored the importance of full disclosure of material relied upon for detention. The bench invited arguments from Sibal on all points to avoid a piecemeal approach, stating, “You can argue all your points. Let us not have a piecemeal approach. It will help us also to understand.”

The UT administration had earlier claimed that Wangchuk’s detention was justified because the District Magistrate (DM) was satisfied that the activist was engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of the state, maintenance of public order, and essential services. They maintained that Wangchuk had been informed of the grounds of detention and his right to make a representation, denying allegations of illegal detention.

As arguments remained inconclusive on Thursday, the Supreme Court posted the matter for next week, leaving open the possibility that the case could be resolved primarily on the issue of whether relevant material was suppressed. Observers note that if the Court concludes that critical evidence was withheld, Wangchuk could potentially be granted early relief or release, without the need to examine other grounds challenging the legality of his detention.

This case underscores the delicate balance between national security concerns and individual constitutional rights, particularly the right to fair hearing and procedural safeguards under preventive detention laws. It also raises questions about the administration of preventive detention in politically sensitive contexts, where allegations of misuse and suppression of evidence are frequently cited.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court has hinted at potential relief for Sonam Wangchuk if it is satisfied that key videos and documents were suppressed by authorities. The ongoing hearing will critically assess procedural compliance under Article 22 of the Constitution and the National Security Act, potentially setting a precedent for the disclosure of evidence and fairness in preventive detention cases in India.