New Delhi, Oct 14: The Leh District Magistrate has defended the detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA), asserting before the Supreme Court that the move was based on credible material and justified under the law. In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the DM stated that Wangchuk was found to have engaged in activities “prejudicial to the security of the state, maintenance of public order, and essential community services,” necessitating preventive detention in the interest of peace and stability in Ladakh.
Responding to a petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, challenging his detention and seeking his release, the Leh administration maintained that the order was passed after “due diligence and careful consideration” of available intelligence inputs. “The detention order came to be passed by me after duly considering the material placed before me, as mandated under law, and after arriving at a subjective satisfaction on the circumstances that prevailed within the jurisdiction,” the DM said in the affidavit. “I was satisfied and continue to be satisfied with the necessity of detention,” the official added.
Wangchuk, a globally recognized engineer and environmentalist known for his advocacy on sustainable development in the Himalayas, was detained on September 26 under the NSA, two days after protests in Leh demanding statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule turned violent. The demonstrations left four people dead and nearly 90 injured, with the administration accusing Wangchuk of inciting unrest through his speeches and mobilization efforts.
The affidavit submitted to the Supreme Court refuted allegations of illegal detention or mistreatment, stating that Wangchuk was duly informed of the grounds of his detention and his subsequent transfer to Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan. “The detainee was categorically informed of his detention under the National Security Act, 1980, and about his transfer to Jodhpur Central Jail,” the DM stated, adding that his wife was also notified telephonically, as she acknowledged in her petition.
The Leh administration further told the court that the order and related documents had been forwarded to the Advisory Board, as required under Section 10 of the National Security Act, within the stipulated time. “The detention order has been forwarded to the Advisory Board by the Union Territory of Ladakh within the period prescribed under the said provision, along with the grounds on which the order was passed,” the affidavit noted.
It also mentioned that Wangchuk had not submitted any formal representation under Section 10 of the NSA, which allows the detainee to challenge the order before the Advisory Board. “The petitioner has, however, sent a letter addressed to the President of India and not to any statutory authority. Under the scheme of Section 10, only the detainee can make a representation,” the DM explained. Nevertheless, since a copy of the letter was marked to the Union Territory administration, it was also forwarded to the Advisory Board for consideration. The Board, in turn, informed Wangchuk in writing that he could submit a representation within one week of receiving the communication, dated October 10, 2025.
The affidavit emphasized that all procedural requirements under the NSA were followed and that the detention was a preventive measure, not a punitive one. It underscored that the decision was taken “to ensure public order and prevent further disturbances in the sensitive border region.”
The National Security Act, enacted in 1980, empowers both the Centre and states to detain individuals without trial for up to 12 months if their actions are deemed a threat to national defense, public order, or essential services. Although the detention can be revoked earlier, it has often faced criticism from human rights groups for its potential misuse against activists and dissenters.
Wangchuk’s detention has drawn widespread attention and concern from civil society organizations, environmental groups, and political leaders, who argue that the move represents a suppression of peaceful activism. His supporters maintain that his advocacy for Ladakh’s statehood and ecological protection has always been non-violent and rooted in constitutional principles.
The Supreme Court is scheduled to resume hearing the case on October 15, when it is expected to take up both the Leh administration’s affidavit and the habeas corpus petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo.