Ladakh climate activist Sonam Wangchuk on Thursday told the Supreme Court that he has a democratic right to criticise and protest against the government and that such sentiments do not threaten the security of the State to warrant his detention..The submission was made by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, arguing for Wangchuk's wife, before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale.Sibal added that Ladakh's nature needs to be preserved and that its people do not want destruction of its pristine environment."Ladakh is a pristine place where nature has to be preserved. A lot of investments of different kinds are coming in now. The same thing happened in Uttarakhand. We also have an Aravalli matter now. We must protest. There’s nothing wrong with that. If Ladakh is to remain pristine, we don’t want any kind of activity that destroys the environment," the senior counsel told the Court..Sibal added that there is no case of violence against him."All the statements relied upon are verbal statements. Other than that, there’s the padyatra and anshan. These are not violent acts. The ground of detention has to be on proactive acts of violence attributed to me," he argued.Sibal alleged that many of the statements cited against him have been misattributed or misquoted and not understood in the proper context. "A detaining authority relying on a statement must rely on the entire statement and cannot rely on a sentence or two...The whole detention order is based on excerpts, out of context, misleading, false, thereby suggesting a selective approach, malafide in nature, to ensure that I am detained," Sibal said..The Court was hearing the plea moved by Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo against his preventive detention.Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act (NSA) following protests in Leh in September 2025 over demands of statehood and Sixth Schedule status for the Union Territory of Ladakh..Appearing for Angmo, Sibal argued that there is nothing against him in the videos cited to detain him. "They have relied upon FIRs against third persons for this detention," Sibal added.Referring to a particular video, Sibal said that it had been wrongly alleged that Wangchuk stated that he would overthrow the government if Ladakh was not granted statehood."That’s not true. He does not say that. Please see the transcription. The correct translation. I say if the government does not have affection for citizens, care for its environment, then such a government is an obstacle in the progress of the nation. He says I too can bring change. We all need to be prepared to save mother Ladakh and mother India. What is wrong in this?" he added.When the Court asked about a statement in which Wangchuk had allegedly stated that people of Ladakh will not help the Army, Sibal said,"This is the problem. They have misled the detaining authority. This has not been said by me. I will show what has been said. In any case, this is of 8th June 2025. The detention order is passed on September 26. If this was the worry, he should have been detained in June itself."Sibal added that the allegation of not helping the Army arises from a misunderstanding due to a language gap or intentional distortion. "If the facts are not clear before the detaining authority, what will they do? Copy paste and just sign the order," he said.Sibal also submitted that videos, where he had praised the government including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, had been ignored by the authorities. "They don’t show all this. And put selective things in the grounds of detention. They show as if I am advocating a plebiscite. I never made such statements. I have put the links to the fact checking statements," he told the Court.On his statements about Kargil district's possible merger with Kashmir valley, Sibal said,"Somebody told him Kargil wants to merge with Kashmir. He said fine if they want to join they can join. There’s nothing relating to a plebiscite."Sibal alleged that random statements had been attributed to Wangchuk. "I am not in those videos. And most of those videos don’t even have a specific date. A comedian’s statement has been attributed to him," the senior counsel said.Referring to a particular video in which Wangchuk had said that if the government does not have affection for its citizens then such a government is an obstacle for the nation, Sibal said."There’s nothing more to it.".Sibal also addressed the allegations about Wangchuk's alleged statement against a Hindu goddess. "The unedited version brings out the complete picture. It was meant to say that after liberating Ladakh from Kashmir, the Central government failed to extend its promise of constitutional safeguards under the 6th schedule. He says like Rama got out Sita from the clutches of Ravana and left her in the market, similar thing Central government did with Ladakh," the senior counsel said.When the Court asked whether there is complete denial of making any statements against Hindu gods, Sibal said,"He just made this allegorical statement on Ram. If these are statements on the basis of which one is detained, then we might as well stop speaking. His wife is a practicing Hindu.".Sibal also said that Wangchuk had led a peaceful march to Delhi from Leh to advocate for Ladakh's rights."There was a walk from Ladakh to Delhi. Like the Punjab kisans did. But there was no disruption. It was peaceful. The argument is here is a man who breaks an anshan, follows Gandhiji’s path, this is his position on 24 September. How does he become a threat to the security of India on 26 September? He did not participate in violence, did not instigate violence.".Sibal contended that a person can criticise the government and that anti-government sentiments do not affect the security of the State."He says he will not allow violence to take place. The 6th schedule was a promise given by a political party. It was given in 2020. If in 2025 he says fulfil it before elections what’s wrong with it? Anti government sentiments is not affecting the security of State. I can criticise the government. We do it all the time! That’s what democracy is about. And part of that is protests, marches, peaceful, has any action been taken under CrPC for disturbing public? None," he said..In this backdrop, Sibal argued that there were no separate acts by Wangchuk and that his conduct was consistent throughout."Section 8A of the NSA. If each of the grounds is a separate ground of detention, then the detention order will still hold even if the other grounds are not relevant. Here we are dealing not with separate acts. Here we are dealing with consistent conduct," the senior counsel argued.He went on to explain that if there is a chain of events and cumulative material leads to the detention order, then they will not be treated as grounds of detention. "In this case, there are no separate grounds of detention," Sibal said.However, the Court asked whether separate instances cannot be elevated to separate grounds. In response, Sibal highlighted the difference between a criminal prosecution and preventive detention."Yes. Political agitation will happen everywhere in the country. There was a road block in the Delhi riots case, there was no detention order. There was prosecution that is a separate matter," he said..In the challenge against her husband's detention, Angmo has referred to a series of actions taken against Wangchuk before his arrest, including the cancellation of the foreign funding certificate for his NGO."It is wholly preposterous that after over three decades of being recognized at the State, National, and International levels for his contributions to grassroots education, innovation, and environmental conservation in Ladakh and across India, Mr. Sonam Wangchuk would suddenly be targeted. Merely two months before the elections and the final rounds of dialogue between ABL, KDA, and the Ministry of Home Affairs, he was served with notices for land lease cancellation, FCRA cancellation, initiation of a CBI investigation, and summons from the Income Tax Department," her plea states.Angmo has argued that his detention is not based on genuine concerns of public order or security, but is a calculated attempt to silence a respected citizen exercising his right to dissent..Today, the Court was told Wangchuk has developed stomach issues in jail due to possible contamination of water and thus needs immediate medical attention."He has problems in his stomach because of the water. He has been wanting a doctor to check. But nobody comes. Let him have a weekly check. And let him have the water we provide," Sibal told the Court.However, the State counsel said that he has been examined by the jail doctor 21 times in past three months. However, the Court pointed out that he needs a specialist."He’s a general physician. When he is specifically saying about stomach ailment, why don’t you get a gastroenterologist?," the Court asked.In response, the State counsel said that he has been advised Vitamin B12. and that in his last report, there was nothing wrong. However, Sibal said that there is a constant problem in his stomach.The Court then instructed that he be examined by a specialist and a weekly report be given. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that everything has been taken care of in the custody."In every case you make such a request," he added.Responding to the comment, Sibal said,"We have had so many people in custody that have been taken care of."The Court said that if medical attention is required, it must immediately be provided to him. It then recorded ASG Nataraj's statement that Wangchuk will be examined by a specialist from a government hospital and a report in this regard will be filed in a sealed cover before Monday..[Read Live Updates on X].Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.
