Daijiworld Media Network - New Delhi

New Delhi, Feb 8: The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear on Monday a habeas corpus petition challenging the continued preventive detention of Ladakh-based climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).

The plea has been filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali J. Angmo, who has termed the detention illegal and an arbitrary exercise of power that violates her husband’s fundamental rights. As per the apex court’s cause list, the matter will be taken up on February 9 by a Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale.

During an earlier hearing, the Supreme Court had orally urged the Union government to reconsider Wangchuk’s continued detention. The Bench, led by Justice Aravind Kumar, noted that Wangchuk has been in custody since September 26, 2025, and observed that medical reports placed before the court suggested his health condition was “certainly not very good”.

The court had suggested to Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, that the authorities should “give it a thought” and examine whether the detention needed to continue.

Responding to the court’s observations, ASG Nataraj had assured that he would seek instructions from the government. Defending the detention, he argued that the NSA is a special legislation intended for preventive purposes and not punitive action.

“The NSA is meant to prevent a person from acting in a manner prejudicial to public order or the security of the state. Preventive detention is not punishment and rests on the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority,” the ASG submitted, adding that the District Magistrate had passed the detention order after objectively assessing the available material.

The Centre further contended that Wangchuk’s speech on September 24, 2025, was provocative and allegedly led to violent protests in Leh, resulting in four deaths and injuries to 161 people.

It was also argued that while Wangchuk had challenged the initial detention order, he had not separately contested subsequent orders extending the detention. However, the Bench indicated that if the original detention order itself was found to be legally flawed—such as for non-application of mind—then later extensions would not independently validate it.

The Supreme Court observed that if the detention order is ultimately set aside, all consequential actions and approvals would automatically stand invalidated.