On October 6, 2025, the Supreme Court issued notice to the Central Government in a habeas corpus petition filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of Ladakh social activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), following violent clashes in Ladakh on September 24, 2025, that resulted in four deaths and over 80 injuries during protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule protections. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria listed the matter for hearing on October 14, 2025, while engaging in a pointed exchange with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal (for the petitioner) and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta (for the Union). Wangchuk, a Ramon Magsaysay Award winner known for his climate activism and the Students’ Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), was detained on September 26, 2025, in Leh and shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail without an FIR, citing his alleged provocative speeches inciting violence, including references to self-immolation and the Arab Spring. The Ladakh administration justified the move under Section 3(2) NSA to prevent further disruption to public order, amid accusations of his links to Pakistani operatives and financial irregularities in his NGO, Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh (HIAL), whose FCRA license was revoked.
The petition under Article 32 seeks Wangchuk’s immediate release, arguing the detention is illegal under Article 22, as neither the detenu nor his wife received the grounds of detention, violating procedural safeguards. Angmo, co-founder of HIAL, highlighted the lack of communication since his arrest, his poor health, and the need for medical support, while denying provocation claims and emphasizing his contributions to the Indian Army and regional sustainability. Sibal urged serving the grounds to Angmo for challenging the detention’s validity, clarifying it was not a new ground but essential for substantive review, and sought interim medical aid and visitation rights. Mehta countered that grounds were served to Wangchuk, with no legal mandate to share them with his wife, accusing the petition of creating “hype” and “emotive issues” for media portrayal, and noted Wangchuk’s self-reported good health during a medical exam. Justice Kumar declined interim orders at this stage, questioning the impediment to sharing grounds and why the High Court was not approached first—Sibal responded that the Central Government order left jurisdictional ambiguity. Mehta agreed to examine serving grounds to Angmo, while the bench advised a formal visitation request before seeking judicial intervention. The exchange underscored tensions over NSA’s invocation in dissent cases, with civil society condemning it as a “witch hunt” amid ongoing curfews in Leh and shutdowns in Kargil, where Section 163 BNS bans large gatherings.
This development amplifies calls for judicial scrutiny of preventive detention laws, echoing precedents like A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) on Article 22 safeguards and recent critiques of NSA misuse in activist arrests. With Ladakh’s agitation for autonomy escalating—marked by the Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance’s withdrawal from talks—the October 14 hearing could probe the balance between security and liberty, potentially influencing NSA applications nationwide. Respondents include the Union, Ladakh Administration, and Jodhpur Jail Superintendent, setting the stage for a high-stakes constitutional battle.
Case Details: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India & Ors. | W.P. (Crl.) No. 399/2025
Lawcutor 