Centre defends detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk in Supreme Court, cites national security concerns

New Delhi, : The Central government on Monday strongly defended the preventive detention of noted Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk before the Supreme Court, arguing that his public speeches contained provocative, separatist messages that posed a serious threat to national security, particularly in the sensitive border region of Ladakh.

Appearing for the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta told the court that Wangchuk had been attempting to incite the youth of Ladakh and push the region towards instability similar to that witnessed in countries like Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka. He cited examples of violent uprisings and political turmoil in these nations to justify the government’s concerns.

The matter was heard by a bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna Varale, which was examining a petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Geetanjali, challenging the legality of his detention.

At the outset, the bench observed that under Article 32 of the Constitution, the court does not sit in appeal over detention orders. The primary issue, it noted, was whether the reasons, grounds and materials relied upon for the detention were genuinely connected to national security and public order.

Arguing on behalf of the government, Mehta submitted that the role of the court was not to substitute its own satisfaction but to examine whether the District Magistrate (DM) had validly arrived at the conclusion that Wangchuk’s activities could disturb public peace and order.

According to the detention order, the DM had concluded that Wangchuk’s speeches had the potential to provoke harmful activities and disrupt harmony in the region. Mehta informed the court that the detention order had been passed after following due process and was approved within four hours.

He further revealed that a senior police officer had met Wangchuk, shown him video clips of his speeches, and that the activist had acknowledged their authenticity. Reading out portions of Wangchuk’s speeches in court, Mehta argued that the activist had deliberately mixed references to Mahatma Gandhi and non-violence with inflammatory statements aimed at mobilising public anger.

“The District Magistrate has to look at the speech in totality. One cannot pick a line or a sentence and claim, ‘I was only quoting Gandhiji.’ The overall message and intent behind the speech must be examined,” Mehta contended.

He accused Wangchuk of misleading the younger generation by encouraging them to follow the path of unrest seen in neighbouring countries. Invoking Mahatma Gandhi’s name, he argued, was merely a tactic to shield provocative rhetoric.

The Supreme Court is expected to continue hearing arguments in the matter in the coming days. The case has drawn widespread attention, raising questions about the balance between freedom of expression and concerns of national security in a strategically important region like Ladakh.