SC notice to Centre on Sonam Wangchuk arrest under NSA
Introduction
On October 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a notice to the Union Government and the Ladakh Union Territory administration following a plea filed by Sonam Wangchuk’s wife. She challenged his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, reigniting discussions on preventive detention, civil liberties, and the boundaries of state authority in a democratic system.
Background of the case
Sonam Wangchuk, known for his environmental activism and involvement in the educational reform of Ladakh, was arrested under the NSA after he called for peaceful protests against the Union Government’s alleged inaction on Ladakh’s statehood demand and constitutional safeguards under Sixth Schedule provisions. The authorities justified his arrest by citing “potential threats to public order,” even though there were no specific reports of violence or incitement.
Sonam’s wife’s plea to the Supreme Court argues that the arrest violates Articles 19, 21, and 22 of the Constitution, contending that it is an abuse of the NSA to stifle dissent. The plea highlights that the law is being misused not for national security reasons but as a means of preemptive political suppression, going against the principle of personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21.
What is NSA?
The NSA allows both the central and state governments to detain individuals without trial for up to 12 months if necessary to prevent actions that could harm public order or national security. While the Act aims to address threats to the nation’s sovereignty and integrity, its vague provisions have faced criticism for potentially leading to arbitrary arrests.
In the previous court cases like A.K. Gopalan v. State of Madras (1950) and ADM Jabalpur v. Shivkant Shukla (1976)show the judiciary’s early struggles in balancing individual freedom and national security. However, the Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India (1978) decision broadened the interpretation of Article 21, requiring that any deprivation of liberty must follow fair and reasonable procedures — a principle now crucial in preventive detention cases.
The scrutiny of the apex court
The Supreme Court’s decision to review the NSA’s application in Wangchuk’s case indicates a potential reevaluation of the boundaries of administrative discretion in preventive detention, especially in areas like Ladakh where activism and environmental and political rights converge.
A ruling against the detention could enhance judicial scrutiny of preventive detention statutes and uphold the dissent as a crucial democratic protection. Conversely, a decision to uphold the detention could broaden state powers in the name of preserving order.
Conclusion
The Sonam Wangchuk case is a critical juncture where constitutional liberty intersects with executive power. It presents a challenge to the judiciary to uphold the principle that national security should not be used as an excuse to suppress peaceful dissent. As India’s democratic institutions progress, the outcome of this case could have a significant impact on how preventive detention is understood in the world’s largest democracy.
