‘Preventive, Not Punitive’: Centre Defends Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention in Supreme Court

The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale heard the matter, in which the Centre justified the preventive detention on grounds of public order and regional security in a sensitive border area.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, continued his arguments against the plea and relied on statutory provisions of the NSA to defend the detention.

Referring to the videos placed before the Court earlier, Mehta submitted that Wangchuk had repeatedly claimed that people of Ladakh could neither frame their own laws nor choose their representatives, a position the Centre described as misleading.

“Ladakh is an integral part of India,” Mehta told the Court, adding that Wangchuk had even drawn comparisons suggesting greater freedom under China in the region. According to the Centre, such statements amounted to instigation in a sensitive border area, raising serious regional security concerns.

Justice Aravind Kumar asked whether the Centre’s case was that Wangchuk’s actions posed a threat to the country. In response, Mehta submitted that the conduct threatened public order as well and that the detention was preventive in nature.

The Solicitor General argued that the Court’s scrutiny in preventive detention cases is limited. He submitted that judicial review must focus on the existence of reasons for detention and whether fair treatment was accorded, without examining the sufficiency of those reasons unless they are “totally alien” to the statute. “Every word used in the detention order has contextual meaning, and every State has region-specific sensitivities,” Mehta said.

Referring to Section 3 of the NSA, he submitted that preventive detention is legally permissible to protect the security of India, prevent acts prejudicial to the security of the State or public order, and to ensure the maintenance of essential supplies and services.

Addressing concerns about procedural fairness, Mehta emphasised that the NSA provides for multiple layers of screening and inbuilt checks and balances. “Look at the screening. There are many layers. This is how it is fair,” he said, while referring to statutory safeguards.

On the issue of Wangchuk being moved to Rajasthan following his detention, Mehta relied on Section 5 of the NSA to justify the transfer.

He further submitted that while there was material on record supporting the detention, the Court should not assess its sufficiency. Given the nature of preventive detention powers, the statutory authority is entitled to a certain degree of latitude, he argued.

Referring to Section 8(1) of the NSA, Mehta submitted that authorities are not required to disclose facts whose disclosure would be against public interest, particularly intelligence inputs protected by statute. However, he clarified that the Centre was relying only on documents that were referred to in the detention record.

Justice Aravind Kumar asked whether the Centre was claiming to have inputs against Wangchuk that were not shared with him but sought to be placed before the Court. Mehta responded in the negative.

When Mehta stressed that scrupulous compliance with the NSA was something the Court must independently examine, Justice Kumar noted that the petitioner had not raised such a contention. “Why would we examine something which has not been canvassed?” the judge asked, making it clear that the Court would not venture beyond the issues argued.

The Centre’s submissions remained inconclusive, and the Bench directed that arguments would continue on Wednesday, i.e. February 4, at 2:30 pm.

Yesterday, the Solicitor General had referred to the speeches made by Wangchuk and said, "This is a call for secessionist activity..Ladakh is essential to the supply chain for the forces at our border..He says Arab Uprise is the ideal, Bangladesh is the ideal, Nepal is the ideal...We know what kind of a change came in Bangladesh and Nepal...he wants that to happen in Ladakh..In a country united by the bond of Constitution..there is no 'their' government..its our government.."

"A blood bath took place in Arab countries and government of six countries were thrown out by this ARAB Spring which Wangchuk refers to..he wants the Gen Z to do this..the speech is an invitation to indulge in a civil war..he is urging impressionable youth to self immolate..", SG had added.