New Delhi: The Union Government on Monday informed the Supreme Court that Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk is in "perfectly good" condition and is receiving high-quality medical treatment at AIIMS Jodhpur. The submission came during a hearing for a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980.

Despite the government's reassurances, a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale expressed visible disappointment. The court noted that no progress had been made by the Union regarding its previous suggestion to review the necessity of Wangchuk’s continued detention, especially given his age and reported health issues.

As the proceedings began, Justice Aravind Kumar specifically asked if any progress had been made on the court’s February 4 suggestion to reconsider the detention order.

"What happened? Any progress? Has it been done?" Justice Kumar asked.

Additional Solicitor General (ASG) K.M. Nataraj responded, "I will submit... No, nothing has been done."

The ASG requested an adjournment, citing his engagement in another matter to be heard post-lunch. While the court eventually agreed to list the matter for Wednesday, the bench cautioned against further delays, reminding the government that this is a "habeas corpus" matter—a legal proceeding used to determine if a person’s imprisonment or detention is lawful, which traditionally demands high priority.

A central point of contention remains the actual state of Sonam Wangchuk’s health. In previous hearings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had informed the court that the activist was in the "pink of health." However, after reviewing a medical report submitted in a sealed cover, the Supreme Court revealed for the first time on February 4 that the report showed his health was "certainly not very good."

His wife’s petition alleges that Wangchuk developed severe stomach ailments while in Jodhpur Central Jail, reportedly due to the use of unfiltered tap water. She has sought periodic health reports and specialist care.

Responding to these concerns on Monday, ASG Nataraj argued that Wangchuk is being treated fairly and is getting better facilities at AIIMS Jodhpur than he would have received in Ladakh. The court, however, remained focused on the fundamental question of whether the five-month-long detention remains justified under the preventive law of the NSA.

Sonam Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, following a "Padyatra" (march) toward Delhi and subsequent protests in Leh. The movement, led by the Apex Body Leh and Kargil Democratic Alliance, demanded statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution to protect the region’s land and cultural identity.

The Union and the Ladakh administration have justified the use of the National Security Act by alleging that Wangchuk’s speeches were "provocative" and led to violence in Leh on September 24, which resulted in four deaths and over 160 injuries.

The government’s primary allegations include:

Instigation of "Gen-Z": The Union claimed Wangchuk attempted to incite the younger generation to launch protests similar to those seen in Nepal and Bangladesh.
"Arab Spring" Rhetoric: Solicitor General Tushar Mehta previously argued that Wangchuk referred to "Arab Spring-style" agitations to overthrow governments.
Divisive Narrative: The government accused him of creating an "Us vs. Them" divide, positioning the Central Government as an outside force.

Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal has challenged the very "edifice" of the detention. Sibal argued that the District Magistrate (DM) of Leh passed the detention order mechanically, without independent application of mind. He pointed out that the first page of the DM’s order was a "verbatim copy-paste" of the recommendation made by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP).

The Supreme Court had previously asked to see the original SSP recommendation to verify this claim, but the document was not available during that session. On Monday, the court reiterated its direction for the government to produce the original files related to the detention process.

The case raises significant questions regarding the limits of the National Security Act. While the government argues that the NSA is a "preventive" and not "punitive" law designed to protect public order, the Supreme Court has signaled that such power must be exercised within strict constitutional limits.

Justice Varale had previously remarked, "If the detention order smacks of legal deficiency, can it not be set aside?" The bench warned that if the initial order is found to be violative of natural justice, all subsequent orders—including the confirmation by the Advisory Board—would also fail.

The Supreme Court has scheduled the next hearing for Wednesday, February 11, at 2:00 PM. The court is expected to review the original files and decide whether the activist should continue to be held in Jodhpur jail or if the detention order requires immediate judicial intervention.

For the people of Ladakh, the outcome of this case is more than just a legal battle for one individual; it is deeply tied to the ongoing struggle for constitutional safeguards in the Union Territory.