Supreme Court Questions Non-Disclosure of NSA Detention to Sonam Wangchuk’s Wife

The Supreme Court has raised concerns over why Gitanjali J Wangmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, was not informed of the reasons behind her husband's detention under the National Security Act (NSA). The detention follows recent violent incidents in Ladakh, and the court has scheduled a hearing on October 14. Notices have been issued to the Centre, Jammu & Kashmir, and Rajasthan in response to Wangmo's habeas corpus plea.

Contested Grounds of Detention

Wangmo's petition, filed under Article 32, challenges the detention as unlawful under Article 22, arguing that neither she nor Wangchuk received a formal explanation for his arrest. Senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing Wangmo, stressed that without a copy of the detention notice, the family cannot legally contest the detention.

The Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, countered that Wangchuk had been informed of the reasons and had met his brother after detention. Sibal maintained that the family had no documentation and could communicate with Wangchuk only via intercom.

Denied Access

Sibal requested that Wangmo be allowed to visit her husband. Mehta stated that 12 individuals had been permitted to meet Wangchuk and asserted that no one had been barred. He cautioned against media narratives suggesting Wangchuk was deprived of medicine or family access, calling such claims attempts to create "false hype."

Supreme Court Observations

The bench noted that while the law mandates serving the grounds of detention to the detainee, there should be no objection to providing a copy to the spouse. However, no orders were issued at this stage. The court instructed authorities to ensure Wangchuk receives necessary medicine and medical care, as he had been detained without belongings and had been fasting.

When asked about her attempts to meet her husband, Wangmo stated she visited Jodhpur last week but was denied access. The bench cautioned both sides against making emotional arguments.

Legal Proceedings and Next Steps

The Supreme Court also questioned why Wangmo had not approached a High Court first. Sibal replied that the detention order came from the Centre, leaving no clear High Court to petition. The bench refrained from further comments and asked the parties to wait for the October 14 hearing.