The Union government on Saturday revoked the preventive detention of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA) nearly six months after he was arrested following protests in Leh over statehood and constitutional safeguards for the region.
In a statement, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs said that the decision was taken “after due consideration” to foster “peace, stability, and mutual trust in Ladakh” and to facilitate dialogue with stakeholders.
The government had accused Wangchuk of inciting the protests through speeches. He was detained on September 26, 2025, and lodged in Jodhpur jail. The revocation of the preventive detention came two days before a hearing in the habeas corpus challenge to it, with the Supreme Court indicating last week that it would be the final hearing in the matter and that it would reserve its order the same day.
Last week was the 24th hearing in the habeas corpus plea, filed by Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali J Angmo. Her lawyer Kapil Sibal had expressed dismay over the repeated adjournments, saying: “This is sending a wrong signal across the country.”
A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale had adjourned the hearing to March 17, following government submission that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta was unwell and couldn’t attend.
Of the 24 adjournments in the matter, at least three were sought by the petitioners, at the start of the hearings, on October 14, 15 and 29. The petition was filed by Angmo on October 3, saying Wangchuk’s detention was meant to silence dissent and questioning several statements attributed to him by the government.
The Supreme Court first took up the plea on October 5, and the initial hearings were over procedural issues. SG Mehta told the Court on October 6 that the authorities would examine whether it was feasible to provide a copy of the detention order to Angmo, as the document had already been given to Wangchuk.
In its order, the Bench also said: “Detaining Authority shall ensure that the detenue receives the medical attention suitable to his condition as may be required….”
When the matter came up again on October 15, the petitioner sought permission that notes prepared by Wangchuk in custody be shared with Angmo. The Court allowed the request and directed that the notes be transmitted through the Jail Superintendent. At the same hearing, Wangchuk’s counsel informed the Bench that they wanted to amend the writ petition to place additional material on record.
At the next hearing on October 29, the petitioners informed the Bench that they intended to amend the writ petition. Subsequently, on November 24, the Court recorded that a rejoinder affidavit had been filed by the petitioners. The SG, however, told the Bench that the document had been received only the previous day and that they needed additional time to respond. The Court recorded the request and listed the matter again.
In December, the matter was listed twice. At the hearing on December 8, a request was made for Wangchuk to appear before the Court through videoconferencing from jail. The government opposed the request, saying that such a facility could not be granted in this case alone. The Court did not pass a decision on the request at that stage and adjourned the matter to a later date.
There was one more hearing in December, which was adjourned due to paucity of time.
In January 2026, the proceedings turned to Wangchuk’s health. On January 29, the petitioner moved an application seeking medical examination and diagnostic tests, saying Wangchuk was suffering from health problems in jail.
When the application was taken up, the government placed medical records before the Court stating that Wangchuk had been examined 21 times between when he was arrested on September 26, 2025, and January 27, 2026. According to the report, his blood pressure and oxygen levels were within the normal range. The government also told the Court that if further treatment was required, it would be provided and that Wangchuk would be examined by a specialist if necessary.
The Court noted the submission by the government to “immediately” provide any medical treatment to Wangchuk that was needed, and to ensure examination by a specialist. Directing that a report in this regard be filed in a sealed cover, the Court disposed of the application and listed the matter again.
Arguments on the legality of the detention followed at the next hearings, with SG Mehta starting his submissions on February 2 defending the detention order. The Bench recorded that the arguments remained incomplete and listed the matter again for the next day.
At the next hearing, the Court noted that it had heard the arguments and directed that the case be listed again for continuation.
On February 3, the government argued that the NSA had been invoked to prevent acts that could disturb public order in a border region. As the arguments progressed, the Bench asked to see the records on which the detention order was based.
On February 11, the Court recorded that the original records of the detention order had been produced and would remain in its custody.
Another issue arose over video recordings referred to in the detention order. On February 16, the Court directed jail authorities in Jodhpur to retrieve a pen drive said to contain the recordings shown to Wangchuk of his speeches, and said these “shall be obtained from the detenue by the jail authorities in a sealed box, which shall be sealed in his presence and be forwarded to this Court in a sealed box by the Superintendent of Jail”.
When the matter came up again on February 19, the State placed before the Court the pen drive in the sealed cover, along with attested proceedings. The petitioners then produced another pen drive containing recordings from September 2025. The Court recorded that the arguments were heard and listed the matter once again.
The next hearing was on March 10, with the hearing deferred on account of the SG not being well.
In its statement Saturday, the government said Wangchuk had already undergone nearly half the period of detention under the NSA, and reiterated its commitment to addressing Ladakh’s concerns through dialogue and a high-powered committee mechanism.