The Supreme Court on October 6 issued a notice to the Central government in a writ petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Ladakh social activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.
The case arises in the wake of recent violent clashes in Ladakh. A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria scheduled the matter for hearing on Tuesday, October 14.
The petition, filed under Article 32 as a habeas corpus plea, seeks Wangchuk’s release, who is reportedly lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail. Angmo contends the detention is illegal under Article 22, as she and her husband have not been provided the official grounds for his arrest.
The Union Government, Ladakh Administration, and the Jodhpur Jail Superintendent are named as respondents.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, urged the court to direct the authorities to provide the detention grounds to his client. Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta countered that the grounds had been served to Wangchuk and that there is no legal obligation to supply them to his wife.
Justice Kumar noted the issue but refrained from immediate orders, asking Mehta to clarify why the petitioner’s request could not be accommodated. Mehta reiterated that supplying the grounds to the wife is unnecessary and described the plea as an attempt to create “a new ground for challenge” and an “emotive issue” for media attention.
Sibal emphasized that without the detention grounds, the order cannot be legally challenged. The matter of interim relief, including medical support for Wangchuk, was also raised. The SG stated that Wangchuk, when examined, confirmed he was not on any medication but assured the court that medical needs would be met.
On the issue of visitation rights, Justice Kumar asked whether Angmo had formally requested to meet her husband. Sibal acknowledged no formal request had been made, prompting the court to direct that such a request should first be submitted to authorities.
Justice Kumar further questioned why the petitioner had not approached a High Court, given that the detention order was issued by the Central Government. The bench adjourned the matter for a detailed hearing on October 14.
