New Delhi, January 18, 2026

The detention of climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA) has become a troubling marker of the state of democracy in India, his wife Gitanjali Angmo has said, alleging that the government itself appears aware that the case lacks legal merit and is therefore seeking repeated adjournments in court.

In an extensive interview with PTI, Angmo, an educator and co-founder of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL), argued that Wangchuk should already be out of prison due to what she described as serious procedural lapses by the authorities. She alleged that the Union government’s top law officer has been “seeking dates after dates” in the Supreme Court because the legal foundation of the detention is weak.

“This is not just about Sonam Wangchuk as an individual,” Angmo said. “It is about the state of democracy in this country and about the use of power to illegally detain people who have worked for the nation. If it can happen to Sonam, it can happen to anybody.”

Detention under NSA

Sonam Wangchuk, a Magsaysay Award-winning innovator, environmentalist and educationist best known nationally for his work in Ladakh, was detained under the NSA on September 26, 2025. His detention came two days after protests in Ladakh demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status turned violent, leaving four people dead and around 90 injured.

Following his detention, Wangchuk was shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail. The government cited national security concerns, but Angmo insists that the grounds of detention are legally flawed, outdated and unsupported by evidence.

According to her, the case is “open and shut” purely on procedural grounds. She has filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court challenging Wangchuk’s detention and seeking his immediate release.

Alleged procedural violations

Angmo pointed to what she described as a clear violation of the National Security Act itself. Under the law, a detainee must be provided all documents and materials forming the basis of the detention within five days, extendable to a maximum of 10 days under exceptional circumstances.

“In Sonam’s case, the authorities provided four crucial video clips only on the 28th day, on October 23,” she said. “This alone makes the detention order void ab initio.”

She explained that these videos were central to the grounds of detention and that denying access to them within the stipulated period deprived Wangchuk of his statutory right to make an effective representation before the advisory board, as mandated under Section 11 of the NSA.

“This is not a minor lapse,” Angmo said. “It goes to the heart of the legality of the detention.”

She added that the grounds cited by the authorities are “stale” and rely on material that is one to one-and-a-half years old. Of the five FIRs referenced in the detention order, she said three do not even name Wangchuk. Of the remaining two, one dates back to August 2025, and no notice or inquiry was initiated at the time.

‘Copy-paste’ detention order

Angmo also alleged that the detention order issued by the district magistrate shows no independent application of mind. According to her, the order appears to be a near-verbatim reproduction of the proposal submitted by the superintendent of police.

“There are several judicial precedents which clearly say that the detaining authority must independently apply its mind,” she said. “A mechanical, copy-paste order makes the detention legally untenable.”

She argued that such practices undermine constitutional safeguards and reduce preventive detention laws to tools of convenience rather than instruments of last resort.

Court proceedings and delays

Angmo claimed that the repeated adjournments sought by the Solicitor General of India indicate that the government is aware of the weaknesses in its case.

“The Solicitor General keeps taking dates after dates, employing delay tactics,” she said. “I believe they have realised there is no merit in the case.”

However, she acknowledged that compared to many other detention cases, hearings in Wangchuk’s matter are still moving relatively faster, even if the delays are deeply frustrating for the family.

She described the process of even meeting her husband and obtaining his handwritten notes as an uphill battle that required judicial intervention. Those handwritten notes have since become part of the legal record submitted to the Supreme Court.

Disappointment over muted response

Angmo expressed disappointment over what she sees as an insufficient public and political response to Wangchuk’s detention. While thanking MPs and leaders who raised the issue in Parliament, she noted that Ladakh MP Mohmad Haneefa’s microphone was muted when he attempted to speak on the matter.

“I am thankful to those who raised the issue,” she said. “But I am also disappointed that it hasn’t been raised to the extent it should have been.”

She stressed that silence in such cases only normalises the misuse of extraordinary laws. “We cannot afford to be silent. The voice needs to be more collected and louder,” she said.

Not a political fight, but a constitutional one

Angmo emphasised that the family is not attempting to politicise the issue. Instead, she framed the legal challenge as a defence of constitutional principles and democratic norms.

“This is not about party politics,” she said. “It is about delays, about due process, and about the arbitrary use of power.”

She also reflected on what she described as increasing polarisation in society over the past few months.

“We are becoming more and more divided — by party, by ideology, by identity,” she said. “My appeal is for people to be true citizens of independent India, with wisdom and discernment of their own, and to think beyond party narratives in the larger national interest.”

Impact on institutions and projects

Beyond the legal battle, Angmo said Wangchuk’s detention has had a tangible impact on the institutions he helped build. HIAL and the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL) continue to function, thanks to what she described as a strong second line of leadership.

“I really applaud our team for rising to the occasion and ensuring there is no disruption,” she said.

However, several new initiatives have been delayed. These include a teacher training fellowship programme and a K–12 school that Angmo herself was leading and hoped to launch this year.

She also claimed that some donors had privately told her they were being “pressured” to stop funding the institutions, although she did not specify by whom.

Despite this, Angmo said there is a silver lining. “More people now know about HIAL,” she said. “Once we get through this, I believe there will be renewed and open support.”

A broader warning

For Angmo, the case is ultimately about more than one activist or one protest movement.

“If preventive detention laws are used this way,” she said, “then no citizen is truly safe.”

As the Supreme Court continues to hear the matter, Wangchuk’s detention has emerged as a flashpoint in the wider debate on civil liberties, preventive detention, and the limits of state power — a debate that, Angmo insists, concerns every citizen, not just her family.