The Supreme Court on Wednesday examined the challenge to the preventive detention of Ladakh-based climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), with the Centre strongly defending the legality of the detention order and asserting that it suffered from no legal infirmity.
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale heard submissions from Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Union of India and the Ladakh Administration, who contended that the detention order dated September 26, 2025, had been passed strictly in accordance with the statutory scheme of the NSA and had subsequently undergone all mandatory procedural safeguards.
At the outset, the ASG pointed out that the detention order had been duly approved by the State Government on October 3, 2025, and thereafter confirmed following the Advisory Board process. He emphasised that there was no challenge to either the approval or confirmation orders, and that the petitioner had consciously limited the challenge only to the initial detention order.
While the Court observed that a detention order could be scrutinised even if subsequent approvals existed, Nataraj submitted that the scheme of the NSA itself envisages that the original order has a limited statutory life of 12 days, after which the matter is independently reviewed by the Advisory Board. He informed the Court that Wangchuk had appeared before the Advisory Board, made a detailed representation, and was afforded a full opportunity of hearing. The Advisory Board, he added, had examined the material placed before it and submitted its report after conducting proceedings at Jodhpur.
Responding to queries on the Advisory Board’s role, the ASG submitted that even where an Advisory Board opinion is rendered, the government retains independent statutory powers under Section 12 of the NSA to continue or revoke detention, a scheme comparable to that under COFEPOSA. The Court acknowledged the structural similarity while noting that such discretion must operate within the confines of law.
On the issue of grounds of detention, Nataraj relied on Section 5 of the NSA and invoked the doctrine of severability, arguing that the detention could be sustained even if one of the grounds were to be held infirm, provided the remaining grounds were independent and sufficient. He submitted that the grounds in the present case were distinct and capable of standing on their own. The Court noted that severability would not apply only where grounds were interlinked or inseparable.
Addressing the Court’s queries on the alleged impact of Wangchuk’s actions, the ASG submitted that preventive detention does not require proof of actual violence and that a person’s propensity to instigate, provoke, or mobilise crowds in a sensitive border region was a relevant consideration. He referred to incidents involving loss of life and injuries allegedly linked to provocation, arguing that the apprehension of public disorder was sufficient to justify preventive action under the NSA.
While the Bench flagged concerns over Wangchuk’s health based on medical reports placed on record and asked whether the government would consider re-examining the detention, Nataraj maintained that the detention had been lawfully ordered and sustained through due process, and stated that he would convey the Court’s concerns to the competent authorities.
The matter will continue to be heard on February 5.
Case Title: Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo vs. Union of India & Ors.
Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale
Hearing Date: February 4, 2026