Sonam Wangchuk Invoked Bangladesh and Nepal Riots, Made Secessionist Remarks, Centre Submits to Supreme Court

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre has vehemently opposed the petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Sonam Wangchuk, before the Supreme Court, challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA).

SG Mehta 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 added.

The Solicitor further objected to Wangchuk's statements saying, "He is sitting in a region which has a border with Pakistan and China and says Indian Army, not my Army..he says Indian Army is weak because of Ladakhis out of the Sikh regiment..".

SG Mehta also elaborated on the role the District Magistrate plays in ordering the detention of a person. "The District Magistrate is the judge of the situation..Preventive detention is done to safeguard the society, not to punish a man..What this court has to examine is if the grounds of detention have a nexus with national security..you have been doing something which you must be stopped from doing now..", SG added.

Wangchuk, on the other hand, has denied before Supreme Court any allegations of inciting an “Arab Spring” or attempting to overthrow the government. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali Angmo, recently told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale that police relied on a selective video. "Look at the video. What he says is if the government of India will not give statehood, he will overthrow the government like the Arab Spring. He does not say so. I will give the transcript," Sibal had submitted.

Sibal had earlier stated that the detention order is unconstitutional and procedurally flawed. Court was told that the detention was founded on four grounds, including four videos dated September 24, which were never supplied to the detenue. He told Court the detention order dated September 26, 2025, relied primarily on four videos dated September 10, 11 and 24, which were cited as the most proximate material leading to the detention. However, despite the grounds of detention being supplied on September 29, these four videos were not furnished to the detenue, amounting to a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution. Sibal had argued that the law was well settled that failure to supply documents relied upon in the grounds of detention renders the detention illegal, regardless of whether the detenue was otherwise aware of their contents.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had earlier defended the Centre asserting that Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA followed due process and his legal rights were not violated. The Leh District Magistrate in an affidavit has told the Apex Court that climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act on September 26 was lawful, citing his alleged role in inciting violence in Ladakh. The DM has confirmed Wangchuk was informed of his detention, the grounds were communicated, and the order forwarded to the Advisory Board.

In the petition before Supreme Court, Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo alleged that she is being followed and placed under surveillance by Intelligence Bureau officials and the Rajasthan Police both in Jodhpur and Delhi, calling it a violation of her fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Angmo stated that she was escorted from the airport by IB and police officers who insisted she travel with them in a vehicle with white curtains drawn to block the view. According to the affidavit, the officers remained with her throughout the visit, including inside the office of the Jail Superintendent, and did not allow her to move freely in Jodhpur.

Angmo has challenged Wangchuk’s continued detention as “illegal and politically motivated”, alleging that the invocation of the NSA is an attempt to stifle peaceful protest and dissent. Wangchuk, known for his environmental activism in Ladakh, was detained following a series of demonstrations demanding constitutional safeguards for the Union Territory. On October 6, 2025, the Court has issued notice in the plea.

According to the petition, Wangchuk, an internationally acclaimed innovator and social reformer, was detained on September 26, 2025, by the Deputy Commissioner, Leh, while he was recovering from a prolonged fast undertaken to demand constitutional safeguards for Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule. He was subsequently shifted to Central Jail, Jodhpur, Rajasthan, without being furnished the grounds of detention.

Case Title: Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo vs. Union of India & Ors.

Hearing Date: February 2, 2026

Bench: Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale