Activist Sonam Wangchuk has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980.
During arguments, his lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, pointed out that Wangchuk had not yet received documents on which his arrest is based.
Sibal also pointed to a "lack of application of mind" of the detaining authority, saying the detention order was a "copy-paste" of the recommendations.
The Supreme Court today(January 12) continued to hear arguments of petitioner Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, who has challenged the detention of the Ladakh social activist and her husband Sonam Wangchuk's under the National Security Act, 1980(NSA), as illegal. Wangchuk has been detained after the Ladakh protests for statehood turned violent since September 2025.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale has been hearing the matter, which was posted for further arguments on January 13, 2026.
Arguing for Wangchuk and Agmo, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the detaining authority had not applied its mind while issuing detention orders for Wangchuk.
"According to us, these grounds at page 109 (of the detention order) are a copy-paste of the recommendations— no difference in language, nothing. The exact words, the exact sentence, everything is the same. That’s our case," said Sibal.
He made three arguments. He again pointed out that the four videos which the authorities have relied upon were not furnished to him. This violates his right to effective representation, not just via the Advisory Board under the NSA but also via the government. He referred to Article 22(1) and 22(5) and stated that clause (1) ensures that no person is detained without being informed and that he cannot be denied the right to consult a legal practitioner. He added that the Courts have interpreted that 'legal practitioner' is not limited to a legal counsel and can include a friend, which in this case is his wife.
"Section 5(A) NSA can only apply when all documents have been shared i.e. the detention order and all the materials on which the detention order has been placed. That’s my constitutional right. Article 25 cannot be subject to section 5(A) NSA. The law has been laid down right from the beginning, right from when the constitution was framed. If at all 5A is to apply, everything has to be served on me," said Sibal.
Adding to this, he referred to clause 5 and said that it ensures that the detention order must be communicated and the detenue must be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation against such order. Sibal had, in the last hearing, pointed out, that while grounds of detention were supplied on September 29, the four videos on which the detention order is primarily based were not furnished. It was also submitted that there is a delay of 28 days in suppling the grounds of detention to Wangchuk.
The court has posted the matter for hearing tomorrow, January 13, 2026.
