The Supreme Court of India has sought a formal response from the Centre to an amended petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of noted environmentalist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980. The court’s order came during a brief hearing held on Wednesday, where the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria allowed Angmo to file additional grounds in her petition, citing multiple procedural lapses and constitutional violations surrounding her husband’s detention.

The amended application, according to Angmo, challenges not only the legality of the detention but also the conduct of the Advisory Board that recently reviewed Wangchuk’s case. The petition argues that the proceedings before the Board were carried out in disregard of the procedural safeguards guaranteed under the NSA and the Constitution, thereby undermining the detenue’s fundamental rights. The Supreme Court, taking note of these contentions, directed Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing on behalf of the Union government, to file a comprehensive response along with all relevant documents. The bench also permitted Angmo to reply to the Centre’s affidavit once it is filed. The matter has been listed for further hearing on November 24.

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, informed the bench that Angmo had been permitted to communicate with her husband as per a previous Supreme Court order dated October 16. The order had allowed the exchange of written notes between Wangchuk and his wife to facilitate the preparation of his legal defence. Sibal further contended that despite this permission, significant obstacles were placed in Angmo’s ability to access complete documentation related to the detention, including the grounds of arrest and the representations made by Wangchuk while in custody.

In her application, Angmo described several instances of procedural irregularity in the functioning of the three-member Advisory Board constituted under the NSA. She stated that she was allowed to assist her husband during the Board’s sitting at Jodhpur Central Jail on October 24. However, despite repeated requests, she was denied access to the full grounds of detention as well as to Wangchuk’s written representations before the Board convened. According to her submission, the written representation prepared by Wangchuk on October 23 reached her only on October 27—three days after the conclusion of the hearing—effectively depriving her of the opportunity to make meaningful submissions or assist him adequately.

Angmo’s petition described the hearing as a violation of the procedural safeguards enshrined in the NSA, which mandates that the detenue must be supplied with all relevant documents and given a reasonable opportunity to make a representation against the detention order. Her counsel, advocate Sarvam Ritam Khare, argued that the Advisory Board’s conduct and the lack of transparency in the process strike at the very core of due process protections guaranteed by Article 22 of the Constitution. The petition further asserted that Wangchuk’s detention on September 26 was unlawful, arbitrary, and unsustainable in law, as it was based on irrelevant grounds, outdated police cases, and material that was either extraneous or selectively presented to justify preventive detention.

The petitioner claimed that the authorities had relied on “stale FIRs” and “self-serving statements” to create an impression of threat to public order, without presenting any credible or immediate evidence that Wangchuk’s actions endangered state security. The application alleged suppression of material facts and deliberate procedural irregularities to legitimize what was effectively an act of political reprisal against a prominent activist who had been mobilizing peaceful demonstrations for Ladakh’s constitutional rights.

Sonam Wangchuk, a Ramon Magsaysay Award recipient widely recognized for his contributions to environmental sustainability and education reform in the Himalayan region, has been at the forefront of a civil movement demanding statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which provides special protections for tribal areas. The movement, initially peaceful, escalated into violence on September 24 during a large-scale protest, leading to the deaths of four civilians and injuries to several others. Following these incidents, the Ladakh administration ordered Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA, asserting that his continued presence and influence could threaten public order and state security.

Defending its decision, the Ladakh administration had earlier informed the Supreme Court that the detention order was issued after the district magistrate (DM) of Leh was “satisfied” that Wangchuk was engaged in activities prejudicial to the security of the state, the maintenance of public order, and the functioning of essential services. The administration emphasized that all procedural safeguards prescribed under Article 22 of the Constitution and the NSA had been “faithfully and strictly adhered to.”

In its affidavit, the administration stated that Wangchuk was duly informed of the reasons for his detention and of his right to make a representation before the Advisory Board. It also contended that while his wife had written to the President of India seeking intervention, such correspondence held no legal weight since, under the statutory framework of the NSA, only the detenue himself is entitled to submit a formal representation. The affidavit maintained that no representation was made by Wangchuk up to that point, despite being given the opportunity to do so.

The government also clarified that the detention order had been reviewed and approved by the Union Territory administration, duly reported to the Central government within the stipulated time frame, and subsequently examined by the Advisory Board constituted under the NSA. According to the administration, the Advisory Board had instructed Wangchuk to file his representation by October 17, suggesting that the authorities had complied with procedural obligations.

Despite these claims, Angmo’s amended petition raises critical questions about the transparency, fairness, and legality of the entire detention process. It asserts that the non-supply of essential documents and the hurried conduct of the Advisory Board hearing deprived the detenue of an effective chance to defend himself, thereby violating the principles of natural justice. The petition also challenges the rationale of invoking the NSA—a law meant to prevent serious threats to national security and public order—against an activist known for peaceful advocacy of democratic rights.

Observers note that the case highlights a larger debate over the use of preventive detention laws in India, particularly against activists and dissenters. The NSA, enacted in 1980, permits detention without trial for up to 12 months if the authorities believe that a person poses a threat to national security or public order. Critics have long argued that its provisions are susceptible to misuse and lack adequate judicial safeguards. Legal experts point out that while preventive detention laws are constitutionally permissible under Article 22, they represent an exception to the fundamental right to personal liberty guaranteed by Article 21, and therefore must be applied with utmost caution and strict adherence to procedure.

As the case proceeds, the Supreme Court’s scrutiny of procedural compliance and the scope of administrative discretion under the NSA will likely have broader implications for civil liberties and state accountability in India. The bench’s decision to grant Angmo the opportunity to amend her petition and file additional material indicates a willingness to examine the legality of the detention on both procedural and substantive grounds. The Centre’s response, expected before the next hearing on November 24, will be crucial in determining whether Wangchuk’s continued detention can withstand constitutional scrutiny.

For now, Wangchuk remains lodged in Jodhpur jail under NSA custody, while his supporters and civil rights groups across the country have called for his release, alleging that his detention reflects an attempt to silence democratic dissent in Ladakh. The coming hearings are likely to test not just the legality of one activist’s detention but also the balance between national security powers and individual freedoms in a democratic framework.