The Supreme Court of India continued its hearing today on the habeas corpus petition challenging the detention of Ladakh-based climate activist and educationist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). The petition, filed by his wife Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, has brought the spotlight back on the procedural safeguards required when the state exercises its power of preventive detention.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale heard arguments from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, who dismantled the detention order on procedural and constitutional grounds.

The core of Sibal’s argument today was the alleged "non-application of mind" by the Detaining Authority (the District Magistrate). Sibal contended that the Magistrate's detention order was a mechanical reproduction of the dossier submitted by the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Ladakh.

"The Detaining Authority did not apply his mind when recommending Wangchuk's detention and only copy-pasted the recommendations made by the SSP," Sibal argued.

To substantiate this, Sibal pointed out that the defense had received only the first page of the SSP's recommendation (dated September 26, 2025) on December 7, leading to a strong presumption that the subsequent order was merely a mirror of the police's draft. In preventive detention jurisprudence, the "subjective satisfaction" of the Magistrate must be independent of the police's request; a mechanical endorsement invalidates the detention.

The Missing Videos & Constitutional Rights

Sibal raised a critical procedural lapse regarding the material relied upon for detention. He submitted that while the grounds of detention were supplied on September 29, the four specific videos cited as evidence of Wangchuk's "prejudicial activities" were never furnished to the detenue.

Referencing Article 22(5) of the Constitution, Sibal argued that a detenue has a fundamental right to make an "effective representation" against their detention.

The Lapse: How can a detenue refute charges based on videos he hasn't seen?
Section 5A of NSA: Sibal anticipated the State's defense under Section 5A (which allows detention to stand even if some grounds are vague/irrelevant). He argued that Section 5A cannot override the constitutional mandate of Article 22. "My constitutional right can't be trampled by virtue of Section 5A," he asserted.

The Court queried a specific allegation that Wangchuk had spoken about "self-immolation" in one of the materials. Sibal clarified the context, stating that Wangchuk was merely citing historical examples (like the Arab Spring) when asked about protests in other nations.

Sibal emphasized that Wangchuk’s actual call to action was strictly Gandhian and non-violent, focusing on hunger strikes rather than violence. He had previously played a video in court where Wangchuk appealed for peace, arguing that this exculpatory evidence was conveniently ignored by the Detaining Authority.

The case raises pivotal questions about the balance between national security laws and personal liberty. The Supreme Court has listed the matter for further arguments tomorrow. The Union Government had earlier opposed Wangchuk's plea to appear via Video Conferencing, citing logistical precedents.