Major development in Sonam Wangchuk arrest case as SC to hear wife’s plea challenging detention of the climate activist

Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) on September 26.

Sonam Wangchuk case: In a significant development in the arrest of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, the Supreme Court of the country adjourned the hearing of a plea filed by Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of jailed climate activist. Deferring the plea to January 8, the bench headed by Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P B Varale decided that the case of Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act will be heard the next day.

“Tomorrow? My brother (Justice Varale) wanted to go through this matter,” Justice Kumar observed. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sonam, agreed to the suggestion.

Notably, the matter was earlier heard by a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria. The plea claims the detention is illegal and an arbitrary exercise violating his fundamental rights.

On November 24, the top court deferred the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the Union Territory of Ladakh, sought time to respond to the rejoinder filed by Angmo. On October 29, the court sought responses from the Centre and the Ladakh administration on an amended plea of Angmo.

Add India.com as a Preferred Source

Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) on September 26, two days after violent protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union territory. The government had accused him of inciting the violence.

According to the amended plea, the detention order is founded upon “stale FIRs, vague imputations, and speculative assertions, lacks any live or proximate connection to the purported grounds of detention and is thus devoid of any legal or factual justification”.

“Such arbitrary exercise of preventive powers amounts to gross abuse of authority, striking at the core of constitutional liberties and due process, rendering the detention order liable to be vitiated by this court,” it alleged.