'Can't Be Permitted To Spread Venom': In SC, Centre Defends Sonam Wangchuk's Detention Under NSA

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday heard arguments in the plea challenging the detention of Ladakh-based climate activist and social worker Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).The petition, filed by Wangchuk's wife, Dr. Gitanjali J Angmo, contends that the preventive detention is illegal and arbitrary.

Wangchuk was arrested in Ladakh on September 26, 2025, following violent protests over demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule protections for the region. He has since been held in Jodhpur Central Jail.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale presided over the hearing, which concluded for the day. The matter is scheduled to continue tomorrow at 2 pm.

Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta strongly defended the detention order, arguing that the District Magistrate's subjective satisfaction was properly formed and justified under the law.

He said that Wangchuk “can't be permitted to spread venom”.

Mehta emphasized that the scope of judicial review under Article 32 is limited, the Supreme Court does not sit in appeal over a detention order or re-evaluate the sufficiency of grounds. He stressed that the court must examine whether there was a nexus between the material and threats to public order or national security, not substitute its own view for that of the detaining authority.

The Solicitor General referred to specific excerpts from Wangchuk's speeches to argue they were inflammatory and likely to disturb public order. He highlighted passages where Wangchuk allegedly:

-Encouraged the youth (Gen Z) to emulate revolutionary situations in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka.
-Referenced the Arab Spring and posed questions about suitable places for self-immolation (in Leh or Delhi).
-Spoke of every region having the right to decide its affiliation, invoking terms like referendum and plebiscite.
-Drew distinctions between “us” and “them” in reference to the central government.

Mehta described these as attempts to mislead impressionable youth, instigate unrest, and give an international color to local demands. He argued that invoking Mahatma Gandhi or non-violence at the beginning and end of speeches served merely as a facade to mask inflammatory content in the middle.

He rejected claims that the detention relied on “borrowed material” or that key videos were not supplied, calling such arguments factually incorrect and afterthoughts already addressed by the advisory board. Mehta explained that the detaining authority must consider the holistic impact of the material presented, not personal prior knowledge, and that multiple safeguards exist under the NSA scheme.

The bench engaged with the arguments, noting aspects of subjective satisfaction, compliance with legal provisions, and the need for independent application of mind by the authority, while clarifying that the court would not labor excessively on judicial review principles.

The hearing remains part-ongoing, with detailed submissions expected to continue tomorrow. Wangchuk's detention stems from protests that turned violent in September 2025, resulting in casualties and injuries in Ladakh.