New Delhi: In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed deep concern over the deteriorating health of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale asked the Central Government if it would consider a "relook" or "rethink" regarding his continued detention under the National Security Act (NSA), noting that his medical reports indicate he is not in good physical condition.
The activist from Ladakh has been lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail, Rajasthan, for nearly five months following his arrest in late September 2025. The court’s remarks come at a time when the legal battle over his detention is reaching a critical stage.
During the hearing, the bench scrutinized a recent medical report submitted by the Jodhpur jail authorities and specialists from AIIMS Jodhpur. The court noted that Wangchuk, 59, has been suffering from persistent health issues, particularly stomach-related ailments.
"Considering the health condition of the detainee... it is certainly not very good. The report we saw earlier shows his health is not that good. There are certain age-related issues, maybe otherwise," the Bench observed orally.
Justice Kumar pointedly asked Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, who was appearing for the Centre: "Is there a possibility for the government to rethink, or even relook at the detention?"
The court clarified that while the government has the power to detain under the NSA, such discretion must be within the parameters of the law and should account for the physical well-being of the individual.
Sonam Wangchuk, a Ramon Magsaysay awardee known for his innovations in education and environmental conservation, was detained on September 26, 2025. This followed a period of intense protests in Leh, the capital of the Union Territory of Ladakh.
The protesters, led by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), were demanding statehood for Ladakh and constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule. On September 24, 2025, the protests turned violent, resulting in the tragic death of four individuals and injuries to over 160 people.
The government accused Wangchuk of instigating the violence through "provocative speeches." He was subsequently booked under the National Security Act—a stringent law that allows the government to detain a person without a formal charge for up to 12 months if they are deemed a threat to national security or public order.
Defending the detention, the Central Government and the Ladakh administration presented a stern front in the Supreme Court. Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta argued that Wangchuk’s actions were not as peaceful as they appeared.
The SG claimed that Wangchuk had been "carefully crafting" his speeches to mobilize "Gen Z" (the younger generation) for protests similar to the regime-changing movements seen in Nepal and Bangladesh. The government further alleged that Wangchuk made references to the "Arab Spring" and used the terminology of "them" (the government) vs "us" (the people of Ladakh), which they claimed was secessionist in nature.
"He was misleading young people while selectively invoking Mahatma Gandhi to mask his true intentions," the SG told the court earlier this week. The government maintained that because Ladakh is a sensitive border region sharing boundaries with China and Pakistan, his "propensity to influence" large groups made his detention a necessary preventive measure.
The Supreme Court is currently hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo, challenging the legality of the detention.
Representing the petitioner, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly refuted the government's claims. Sibal argued that the detention order was based on "stale FIRs" and "selective, edited videos" circulated by social media cells to mislead authorities.
Sibal emphasized that Wangchuk had publicly condemned the violence of September 24, calling it the "saddest day of his life." He argued that expressing an anti-government sentiment or demanding the fulfillment of political promises (like the Sixth Schedule) is a democratic right and cannot be termed "anti-national."
"Anti-government sentiment is not a security threat to the country. Criticism is the essence of democracy," Sibal argued. He also pointed out that the water quality in the Jodhpur jail was poor, which contributed to Wangchuk’s stomach ailments.
ASG Nataraj argued on Wednesday that the detention was "purely discretionary" and that all procedural safeguards under the NSA had been followed, including a review by an Advisory Board. He noted that the Advisory Board had even traveled to Jodhpur to hear Wangchuk’s representation.
However, the Bench was quick to point out that even if procedures were followed, the court could still intervene if the original detention order suffered from "non-application of mind" or "legal deficiencies."
"If the very foundation of the detention order is challenged, the subsequent approval or confirmation by the state does not automatically make it valid," the court remarked.
The Supreme Court has asked the Centre to seek instructions on whether there is any room for reconsidering the detention, especially in light of the medical report.
For the people of Ladakh and supporters of Wangchuk across India, this observation is a glimmer of hope. While the government views him as a potential threat to regional stability, his supporters see him as a climate warrior being silenced for demanding democratic rights.
The matter is set to continue, and the Centre’s response to the court’s "health-based" appeal will be the turning point in this high-profile legal battle.