Ladakh violence stopped once Sonam Wangchuk was detained: Centre concludes arguments before Supreme Court

The Central government and the Leh administration on Thursday concluded their arguments in the plea challenging Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act (NSA).

The government told a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale that Wanghcuk's detention arrested the violence in Ladakh and this proved that the detention was justified.

"After the detention, complete agitation and violence came under control. Hence it’s proved that it’s a perfect order which was justified in the situation," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj submitted on behalf of the government.

ASG Nataraj also said there was complete application of mind by the detaining authority while detaining Wangchuk and that all procedural safeguards were followed.

"Kindly see the situation. The border areas, where agitations and violence is erupting. National interest should be the paramount consideration. By ignoring all these aspects, by pointing out various aspects of fundamental rights, the person coming before this Court should also be aware of his fundamental duties towards citizens and the country," Nataraj said.

At the end of his arguments, Nataraj apologised for taking time to complete arguments.

The Court said,

"In these matters it is bound to happen."

The Court listed the matter for hearing of rejoinder arguments by the petitioner, Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo, on Monday, February 16.

In continuation with an exchange it had yesterday with the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Court today asked ASJ Nataraj,

"Hope you have no objection if we ask you a question. You should not say later that improper questions are being asked. That is why we preface it."

In response, Nataraj said that they are bound to answer when the Court poses a question, whether relevant or irrelevant.

The Court, however, said that a counsel cannot decide whether a question posed by the Bench is relevant or irrelevant.

"It may be irrelevant to you and them (the other side), but it may be relevant to us. And later on, we may also say it was not required. It is for better understanding," it clarified.

SG Mehta had yesterday raised an objection to the Court's reading of a speech of Mahatma Gandhi during the hearing, stating that the media would portray it in a different manner. However, the Court said it was not concerned with what takes place outside the courtroom.

Wangchuk was detained under the NSA following protests in Leh in September 2025 over demands of statehood and Sixth Schedule status for the Union Territory of Ladakh.

His wife then filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking his release.

Last week, the Court urged the Central government to review the decision to detain Wangchuk, considering his deteriorating health in the jail. However, the authorities decided against releasing detained Wangchuk on health grounds.

Today's hearing

Senior Advocate Vivek Tankha, appearing for Angmo today, made brief submissions on the videos cited against Wangchuk. Tankha said that there was a stark difference between what has been attributed to Wangchuk by the detaining authority and what he actually said.

"When they talk about plebiscite, the issue is whether Kargil wants to go with Ladakh or Kashmir. He says he doesn’t mind. If the people want to go to Kashmir, they can. He said in the past if people have wanted to go somewhere there have been plebiscites," the senior counsel said.

ASG Nataraj argued that procedural safeguards like supply of documents to Wangchuk were met in the case.

"Only right guaranteed to a detenue are procedural safeguards alone. Nothing else. Sufficiency of material cannot be gone into in proceedings under Article 32 and 226. This has been observed by this Court in an earlier case involving the State of Punjab," the ASG said.

Citing an earlier ruling of the Supreme Court, Nataraj said,

"The satisfaction of the detaining authority is not open to judicial review. The requirement for the detaining authority to detain is suspicion or reasonable probability."

ASG urged the Court to consider the pressure under which the detaining authority had passed the detention order following the death of four people in Leh. He added that the Court cannot expect perfection of language from the detaining authority.

"Detention orders cannot be equated with the judgments of this Court or any court...If detention wouldn’t have been ordered, much more damage would be caused," Nataraj said.

Nataraj added that the detention order was not a copy-paste of the recommendation made by the police. There was a clear application of mind, the ASG said.

At the end of the hearing, Wangchuk’s counsel complained that the pen drive which was supplied to him mischievously didn’t have any of the four videos cited against him.

"We have repeatedly told them about it. We are not alleging non-supply of the remaining videos. But the 4 videos referred in Annexure A were not there in that pen drive. The laptop was first supplied to us on 5th October when we realised the four videos are missing," a counsel said.