The Supreme Court of India on Monday served a notice to the Central Government requesting an explanation for the detention of environmentalist and education activist Sonam Wangchuk in Ladakh. The court’s move comes following a petition questioning the legality and rationale for Wangchuk’s preventive detention under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), evoking widespread public angst and discussion on civil liberties in the Union Territory.
The bench, led by Chief Justice D.Y. Chandrachud and comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, ordered the Centre and the Ladakh administration to file a detailed affidavit within seven days. The court noted that preventive detention laws cannot be used as a tool to stifle dissent or peaceful activism, and further stated that “liberty is not a gift of the state but a constitutional guarantee.”
Sonam Wangchuk, a well-known engineer, inventor, and climate campaigner, was allegedly detained last week for leading a peaceful sit-in protest demanding constitutional protections for Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule. His campaign, which witnessed huge turnouts of locals and activists, has demanded more autonomy and environmental protection for the sensitive Himalayan terrain. The authorities, however, said that the rallies could “disturb public order,” which is why it was necessary to invoke the PSA — a law permitting detention without trial for one year.
The petition, led by Wangchuk’s lawyers, alleges that his detention was unlawful, arbitrary, and intended to muzzle legitimate democratic expression. According to the petition, Wangchuk had always preached non-violence and sustainable development and was in no way a threat to public safety.
The Supreme Court’s notice has again stirred controversy regarding the application of preventive detention law in India, especially in states such as Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh. The PSA has been criticized by legal experts often for having wide and sweeping provisions that enable authorities to detain a person on speculative grounds. “The PSA has been an instrument of suppression for long. Its use against a non-violent activist such as Sonam Wangchuk raises serious constitutional issues,” said senior lawyer Indira Jaising.
There has been a quick and strong public reaction to Wangchuk’s detention. Students, environmentalists, and civil society groups across the country have shown solidarity with hashtags such as #FreeSonamWangchuk trending on social media. Many have praised the Supreme Court for holding the government accountable.
Political responses have also been seen, with opposition leaders attacking the Centre’s response to the issue. Congress leader Rahul Gandhi tweeted on X (formerly Twitter): “Detaining a man who has devoted his life to education and climate action lays bare the government’s intolerance of peaceful voices.” Officials from the Ministry of Home Affairs, however, defended the detention as saying that “action was taken in accordance with law and to ensure peace in the region.”
Wangchuk, who is most famous for his contributions to sustainable engineering and education reform in Ladakh, has received international recognition for initiatives such as the solar-powered “Ice Stupa” project and the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Ladakh (HIAL). His arrest has thus attracted international attention, with various international bodies calling for India to respect democratic liberties.
With the case moving ahead, the position of the Supreme Court is being closely monitored. Human rights observers see it as a possible precedent in balancing national security with constitutional freedoms. The direction of the Court indicates its intention to examine the exercise of exceptional powers by the government, particularly when utilized against activists and reformers.
The Centre is also required to submit its detailed rationale later in the month at the next hearing, by which time Sonam Wangchuk will continue to remain in detention. Meanwhile, his case has again put the focus on India’s controversy surrounding the debate between its security needs and the right to protest.
