Institute of Legal and Management Studies

Dr.Gitanjali Angmo has filed an amendment application before the Supreme Court, raising additional grounds challenging the detention of her husband and Ladakh social activist Sonam Wangchuk, who has been detained under the National Security Act, 1980, after the recent Ladakh protests turned violent.

She has submitted that the detention order and grounds of detention are ex facie unsustainable in law as they are premised upon irrelevant grounds, stale FIRs, extraneous material, self-serving statements, and suppression of information.

Detention based on stale FIRs, bears no nexus with Wangchuk

As per her plea, the grounds of detention rely upon five FIRs, out of which three date back to more than 1 year and in which there is neither any allegation against him nor is there specific mention of his name.

The fifth FIR, dating one day prior to his detention, only states that it is against some "unknown miscreants": "“meanwhile some miscreant youths, through a deliberate conspiracy, instigated those who joined the hunger strike and turned the gathering into a procession”… “Subsequently, the of said miscreants also began stone pelting at the office the Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council (LAHDC)”… “the miscreants attacked the police personnel".

It is only the fourth FIR which names him, but it was lodged immediately after he joined the Apex Board of Leh(ABL). It is stated that this FIR pertains to completely different facts.

"It is submitted that the Detention Order suffers from gross illegality and arbitrariness, as it relies upon stale, irrelevant, and extraneous FIRs. As is evident from the preceding paragraphs, out of the five FIRs relied upon, three pertain to the year 2024, bearing no proximate, live, or rational nexus to the detention of Mr. Wangchuk in September 2025. Moreover, four out of five of the FIRs, out of which three are registered against “unknown persons”, do not name Mr. Sonam Wangchuk. There is thus no clear, live, proximate, or intelligible connection between the FIRs and the preventive detention of Mr. Sonam Wangchuk under the NSA, 1980."

Misleading that Wangchuk as member of ABL instigated protests

It is stated that Wangchuk had been a general supporter of both ABL and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA) in their movement for Statehood and safeguards for Ladakh.

It was only in 2025 that he joined as a member, and soon after, when controversies began to emerge with ABL, its leadership unanimously passed a resolution inviting Wangchuk to join both the High Powered Committee (HPC) and the sub-committee for talks with the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA). However, the following week made it clear that the MHA had strong reservations about Wangchuk being part of the HPC delegation of ABL and KDA.

This was, despite the fact that, both ABL and KDA had clearly stated that the composition of their delegation was their prerogative and should not be dictated or influenced from Delhi.

"It is submitted that it is incorrect to state that Mr. Sonam Wangchuk instigated the ABL to organise any protest. The question of “instigation” does not arise at all, as both the ABL and KDA leadership had, on multiple occasions, publicly announced, even prior to Mr. Wangchuk's joining and at a time when he held no decision-making position whatsoever, that they would intensify their agitation if the MHA did not resume talks after the meeting held on 27.05.2025. In fact, the ABL and KDA had already organised a joint three-day hunger strike from 10 -12 August 2025 in Kargil district demanding that talks with the Central Government be resumed."

Wangchuk used protest to target government for cancelling his NGO's license false; detaining authority maliciously targeted him just before Leh elections

The application denies the allegation that Wangchuk used protest to target the government, as he has worked tirelessly with governments in the field of nation-building.

"Mr. Wangchuk has, for over 30 years, worked tirelessly in the field of nation-building through educational reform and environmental solutions to climate change, and has been honoured with more than 30 awards by various State Governments, successive Central Governments, and international institutions, bringing pride to the nation. It is pertinent that such allegations surfaced for the first time only in the last two months i.e. August and September 2025, which immediately resulted in notices and actions against his institutions, including cancellation of land leases, CBI investigation, FCRA cancellation, Income Tax summons, and other proceedings."

It is claimed that Wangchuk was deliberately targeted just before the Leh elections because he had raised the issue of statehood.

"The fact that all of these actions suddenly arose just two months before the LAHDC, Leh elections, scheduled for October 2025 and at a time when he publicly raised the issue of fulfilling the 6th Schedule promises made during the 2020 elections, prima facie reveals a malicious intent on the part of the detaining authority."

Wangchuk's reference to change of government in other countries was misinterpreted

The amendment application also submits that the ground of detention mentions Wangchuk's reference to Nepal, Sri Lanka and Bangladesh in his speeches selectively.

The whole speech shows that he was merely referring to remarks made by earlier speakers who had referred to the change of governments in those countries. He had also offered a clarification, stating: "Unlike these places, in Ladakh it won't be through violence, stones, arrows etc. We can have a peaceful revolution (this phrase can be heard in English), where we starve ourselves to bring change but not bother anyone else and make Ladakh an example for other countries also.”

"It is submitted that a bare perusal of the very next sentence in the same speech makes it abundantly clear that Mr. Sonam Wangchuk was not calling for a “Nepal type revolution” but, on the contrary, expressly advocating a peaceful and non-violent course of action. The omission of this clarifying sentence by the detaining authority results in a selective and distorted portrayal of the speech, and such selective quotation calls for strict scrutiny by this Hon'ble Authority."

Angmo asserted that Wangchuk never made any provocative speech ahead of the violence which broke out on September 24 and had merely undertaken a peaceful hunger strike in support of Ladakh's demand for statehood. It was also claimed that he had issued social media statements condemning the violence and appealing for peace.

Complete grounds of detention not supplied

She also contends that she has yet to receive the complete grounds of detention. Angomo has submitted that Wangchuk was supplied with an incomplete detention order, and that too after three days after his illegal detention on September 29.

As per her amended plea, he was not supplied with four videos, which were referred to in the grounds of detention given to him. It was only after 28 days of flagrant delay, that is, on October 23, that he was provided access to the four videos, a day before the hearing before the Advisory Board and on its direction, the jail authorities were to provide the same.

Due to this delay, the provisions of the National Security Act, especially Sections 8 and 11, stand violated. As per Section 8, the grounds of detention are to be supplied within 5 days of detention and in exceptional circumstances, not later than 10 days.

Since the complete grounds of detention were not supplied, he was deprived of an opportunity to make an effective representation within the statutory time limit. Moreover, it is also contended that while he was detained on September 26, the grounds of detention is dated September 28, after the detention order was issued.

Angmo contends that Wangchuk and she had written letters, including follow-up letters to the authorities, asking for the same, but received no reply. It is also stated that a detention order has been passed based on certain "recommendations", but those are not a part of the detention order.

Moreover, it is stated that he was also not supplied the notification dated September 26, authorising the District Magistrate, Leh, to issue a detention order.

Angmo has particularly alleged that the hearing before the Advisory Board on October 24, under the NSA, was conducted in violation of the procedural safeguards and Article 22(5) of the Constitution, as, despite her being appointed as Wangchuk's friend to assist him during the proceedings, she was neither informed nor given access to his written representations and therefore, no effective opportunity to be heard was afforded to them. Only upon request, she was supplied with the copy during the proceedings.

Detention order not based on independent subjective satisfaction of the materials

Relying upon Section 3 of the NSA, it is stated that the State Government or the Central Government, as the case may be, must be satisfied of the grounds of detention before passing a detention order. However, the present detention order does not reflect independent satisfaction that the District Magistrate has arrived at and merely says: "I have studied the details given in the recommendation and perused the enclosed documents and material in this regard and after a thorough consideration, I ….. am fully satisfied that you ….. have been indulging in ……”.

Detenee transferred away from his jurisdiction without cogent reasons

She has also raised an issue that Wangchuk was placed in detention in the central jail, Jodhpur, without any cogent reasons.

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria today allowed Angmo's plea to amend the petition after it was mentioned by her counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal. The bench granted time to the Union to respond to the additional grounds.

On October 15, the Court allowed Angmo to get access to the notes he had prepared to challenge his detention after Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta(for the Union), did not object to it. The notes were supplied to the wife on October 16.

On October 6, when notice was issued, Sibal had argued that the grounds of detention hadn't been served to them. In contrast, SG Mehta submitted that there is no legal requirement for the grounds of detention to be communicated to the wife. Sibal had replied that he would not be relying on the non-supply of the grounds of detention to the wife as a ground to challenge the detention, and that he was seeking them so that the detention itself could be challenged.

The writ petition filed under Article 32 is a habeas corpus petition seeking the release of Wangchuk, lodged in a jail in Jodhpur.The Union Government, Ladakh Administration and the Superintendent of the Jodhpur Central Jail are the respondents in the petition.

Recently, the Leh District Magistrate filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court denying that the detention was illegal. The authority also stated that the grounds of detention were supplied to Wangchuk within the statutorily mandated timelimit and that he is yet to make any representation against his detention. The Jodhpur Central Jail Superintendent stated in a separate affidavit that Wangchuk's wife, brother and lawyers were allowed to meet him in jail.

Case Details: GITANJALI J. ANGMO v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The writ petition has been filed by Advocate on Record, Dr Sarvam Ritam Khare.