Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA), following weeks of protests in Ladakh demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule protection—a movement that later spiralled into violence, leading to the deaths of four civilians.

A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P. B. Varale is hearing the Article 32 habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Dr Gitanjali Angmo, which challenges the legality of his continued detention. Proceedings have been closely tracked by LiveLaw and other media.

Union’s core defence

1. Court’s review is procedural, not substantive

Opening arguments for the Union, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta emphasised that judicial scrutiny in preventive detention matters is narrowly circumscribed. The Court, he argued, is not entitled to examine whether the detention was “justified”, but only whether statutory and constitutional procedures were followed so as to ensure fairness to the detenue.

Mehta relied on established precedent to submit that once the detaining authority records subjective satisfaction, courts must exercise restraint.

He further underscored the “inbuilt safeguards” within the NSA:

• The District Magistrate’s detention order must be confirmed by the State Government; and
• The detenue has a right to make a representation before an Advisory Board headed by a former High Court judge.

Crucially, Mehta pointed out that Wangchuk has not independently challenged either the confirmation order or the Advisory Board’s opinion, a submission clearly aimed at narrowing the scope of judicial interference.

2. Dispute Over Supply of Materials: Union calls allegations an “afterthought”

Responding to the petitioner’s contention that four video clips relied upon in the detention order were not supplied to Wangchuk, Mehta rejected the claim as factually incorrect and a belated fabrication.

According to the Union, the service of the detention order itself took nearly four hours, during which a senior police officer personally went through each page of the grounds and the video material, a process that was videographed.

“The DIG Ladakh sits with him, shows him every page, every clip, and asks if he is satisfied. He answers in the affirmative,” Mehta told the Court, offering to place the recording on record if required.

3. “Borrowed satisfaction” argument rejected

When the Bench raised the argument that the detention order was based on borrowed or mechanically reproduced material, Mehta countered that this misunderstands the nature of preventive detention.

He argued that a District Magistrate is not expected to personally witness each incident but is entitled—indeed required—to rely on inputs placed before him by law enforcement agencies to arrive at subjective satisfaction.

“What the authority must assess is the speech as a whole,” Mehta said, warning against isolating references to non-violence or Gandhian philosophy while ignoring the allegedly inflammatory core.

4. Union alleges “hope for riot-like situation” in Ladakh

The centrepiece of the Union’s case lies in its reading of Wangchuk’s speeches. According to Mehta, Wangchuk deliberately invoked foreign protest movements to emotionally mobilise young people in Ladakh—a region that shares borders with volatile and geopolitically sensitive areas.

He referred to Wangchuk’s alleged references to:

• Nepal’s youth-led protests,
• Political upheavals in Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, and
• The Arab Spring, where multiple governments were overthrown following mass unrest.

“What is the relevance of Nepal and Ladakh?” Mehta asked. “You are not addressing Gen-Z in isolation—you are hoping for a Nepal-like situation.”

The Solicitor General dismissed Wangchuk’s invocation of Mahatma Gandhi as a rhetorical façade. “Gandhi was resisting an imperial power. He was not instigating violence against his own democratic government,” Mehta argued.

5. Alleged security concerns and references to self-immolation

The Union further alleged that Wangchuk attempted to create distance between civilians and Indian security forces by lamenting the deployment of armed personnel in Ladakh.

“Security forces become ‘they’, and the people become ‘we’—this is dangerous in a border region,” Mehta submitted.

The most serious allegation concerned Wangchuk’s references to self-immolation, drawn from the Arab Spring narrative.

“This is an invitation to bloodshed,” Mehta claimed, arguing that such examples could incite impressionable youth to extreme and irreversible acts.

Petitioner’s response

1. Non-consideration of crucial exculpatory material

On behalf of the petitioner, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mounted a systematic dismantling of the detention order in earlier hearings.

Sibal argued that the September 24 speech, in which Wangchuk broke his hunger strike and publicly appealed for peace after violence erupted, was the most proximate and relevant material—yet was never placed before the detaining authority.

Its suppression, he argued, vitiates the very foundation of subjective satisfaction, particularly when the speech was publicly available and known to authorities.

2. Failure to supply relied-upon materials violates Article 22(5)

Sibal further submitted that four key videos, explicitly relied upon in the detention order, were never supplied to Wangchuk along with the grounds of detention, in violation of Article 22(5) of the Constitution and Section 8 of the NSA.

Without access to the complete material, Wangchuk was denied the right to make an effective representation—not merely before the Advisory Board, but also before the government itself.

3. Section 5A cannot rescue a composite detention order

Rejecting the Union’s reliance on Section 5A of the NSA, Sibal argued that the provision applies only where distinct and independent grounds of detention exist.

Here, he said, the detention rests on a single composite ground, stitched together through selective videos, stale FIRs, and allegedly distorted interpretations.

Relying on Attorney General of India v. Amratlal Prajivandas (1994), Sibal submitted that a chain of events cannot be artificially severed to salvage an otherwise unlawful detention.

4. Stale FIRs, copy-paste orders, and non-application of mind

Sibal also pointed out that:

• Several FIRs relied upon date back to 2024,
• Many are against unknown persons, and
• Even the FIR registered after the Ladakh violence does not name Wangchuk.

He further demonstrated that the District Magistrate reproduced the Superintendent of Police’s recommendation verbatim, betraying a mechanical exercise of power rather than independent application of mind.

5. Allegations of anti-army rhetoric and plebiscite “completely false”

Addressing allegations that Wangchuk discouraged civilians from assisting the Indian Army during wartime, Sibal said the claim was entirely false, arising from mistranslation or deliberate distortion.

He quoted Wangchuk as urging Ladakhis not to mix political grievances with national defence, and to stand by the country during any external conflict.

Similar distortions, Sibal argued, were made regarding:

• Alleged support for plebiscite, and
• Claims of disrespect toward a Hindu goddess—both of which he described as manufactured narratives, widely debunked by fact-checkers.

Health, custody, and court-ordered medical care

Amidst these proceedings, concerns over Wangchuk’s health have also engaged the Court’s attention.

On January 29, the Supreme Court directed that Wangchuk be examined by a specialist gastroenterologist at a government hospital, after he complained of persistent stomach pain during his detention.

He was subsequently taken to AIIMS Jodhpur on January 31, where he underwent medical tests. While jail authorities claimed he had been examined 21 times, the Court accepted that specialist care was warranted and sought a report by February 2.

Voices Outside Court: Gitanjali Angmo speaks

Speaking to The News Minute at the Mathrubhumi International Festival of Letters in Thiruvananthapuram, Dr Gitanjali Angmo framed her husband’s detention as an attempt to silence a sustained and principled critique of how Ladakh is being governed after the abrogation of Article 370. She suggested that Sonam Wangchuk’s insistence on environmental safeguards and public participation in decision-making had increasingly placed him at odds with a governance model driven by centralised authority rather than local consent.

Dr Angmo emphasised that Ladakh’s demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule protection were neither sudden nor radical, but rooted in the region’s fragile ecology, high-altitude geography, and distinct cultural identity. With temperatures plunging to sub-zero levels and ecosystems highly vulnerable to disruption, she argued that policies designed for the rest of India cannot be mechanically applied to Ladakh without severe consequences for both people and environment.

She cautioned against what she described as a “one-size-fits-all” approach to governance, warning that excessive centralisation risks erasing India’s constitutional commitment to diversity and federal balance. India, she noted, has historically functioned as a plural federation, united not by uniformity but by accommodation of difference—a principle she fears is being steadily undermined.

Rejecting any suggestion that Wangchuk’s activism was anti-national, Dr Angmo characterised his work as firmly anchored in constitutional values and long-term national interest. She alleged that his speeches were selectively excerpted and stripped of context, while his repeated appeals for peace and unity were ignored, creating a distorted narrative that portrayed dissent as a security threat.

In Dr Angmo’s account, the case transcends the legality of one preventive detention and raises a deeper question about the health of Indian democracy. When region-specific political demands and environmental concerns are met with the extraordinary power of preventive detention, she suggested, it signals a troubling intolerance for dissent—particularly from India’s geographic and political margins.

A growing constitutional unease

As the hearings unfold, the case has come to symbolise a broader constitutional tension: the use of preventive detention laws against political dissent, particularly in regions demanding greater autonomy and constitutional safeguards.

At its core lies a troubling question—can references to global protest movements, stripped of context and divorced from subsequent calls for peace, justify the extraordinary power of preventive detention?

Wangchuk, notably, was detained two days after publicly calling for calm, breaking his fast, and dissociating himself from violence. The leap from that moment to the conclusion that he posed an imminent threat to national security remains at the heart of the Court’s scrutiny.

In a constitutional democracy, where preventive detention is meant to be the exception rather than the rule, the outcome of this case may well define the line between legitimate security concerns and the impermissible criminalisation of dissent.

Further hearings are awaited.

Orders of the said case may be read below.

Related:

How the Centre used a ‘Draconian’ law to silence Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakh’s aspirations

A victory for Ladakh’s voices: Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakhi activists break 16-day fast as union government agrees to renew talks on demands

Centre cancels FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, cites violations including study on ‘sovereignty’

Gen‑Z’s furious stand for Ladakh statehood, centre blames Sonam Wangchuk for violence incitement

The post When Protest becomes a “Threat”: Inside the Supreme Court hearing on Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The Central government’s narrative is clear that Wangchuk is an instigator with foreign links. But for the people of Ladakh and civil rights advocates across India, his jailing represents something far more ominous—the caging of a democratic voice and the criminalisation of dissent in one of the nation’s most strategically sensitive regions.

The day the protest burned

September 24, 2025, will be remembered as the day Ladakh’s peaceful struggle took a tragic and violent turn. For weeks, Sonam Wangchuk had been on a hunger strike, a Gandhian protest to draw attention to the long-standing demands for statehood and inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution—a provision to protect the tribal region’s unique culture, land, and employment.

A protest, largely led by the region’s youth and organised in solidarity with his fast, escalated into chaos. Mobs reportedly vandalised property and set government vehicles and the local BJP office ablaze. In the ensuing clashes, security forces responded with tear gas and, eventually, live fire. The aftermath was unfortunate as four individuals lost their lives, and over 80 were injured.

The central government and the local administration were quick to lay the blame. The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) claimed the “mob was incited by Sonam Wangchuk through his provocative statements.”

The ministry alleged that Wangchuk’s references to global movements like the ‘Arab Spring’ and Nepal’s ‘Gen Z protests’ were deliberately inflammatory. “It is clear that the mob was incited by Sonam Wangchuk through his provocative statements. Incidentally, amidst these violent developments, he broke his fast and left for his village in an ambulance without making serious efforts to control the situation,” the MHA claimed in a statement.

However, Ladakhi leadership vehemently refutes this narrative. Chering Dorjey Lakrook, the Co-Chairman of the Leh Apex Body (LAB), stated unequivocally, “Sonam Wangchuk or Congress didn’t provoke anyone, what happened was a protest in support of the genuine demands of the youth.” The sentiment on the ground was that the violence was a spontaneous eruption of frustration, not a pre-meditated act of sedition orchestrated by the activist.

A web of allegations and the stringent use of NSA

Two days after the violence, the state machinery moved decisively. Wangchuk was detained near his residence under the National Security Act, 1980, a law that permits detention for up to 12 months without trial. The rationale for his subsequent transfer to Jodhpur Central Jail was that keeping him in Leh was “not advisable in the larger public interest.”

Leh under curfew for fourth consecutive day- Sonam Wangchuk shited to Jodhpur jail | JK News Today pic.twitter.com/rgtwatOEuc

— JK News Today (@jknewstoday) September 27, 2025

The Ladakh administration defended the move, stating it had “taken a considered decision based on specific inputs.” It alleged that “time and again it was observed that Sonam Wangchuk has been indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State and detrimental to maintenance of peace and public order.”

The narrative was further solidified in a press conference by Ladakh’s Director General of Police, S D Singh Jamwal. The allegations he levelled were stunning, painting Wangchuk not as a local hero but as a pawn with sinister connections. “What has been found in the investigation (against Wangchuk) cannot be disclosed at this moment,” the DGP began, before weaving a narrative of suspicion. “His speech worked as an instigation as he talked about the Arab spring and the recent unrest in Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. He had his own agenda.”

Jamwal claimed Wangchuk was being probed for violating the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act (FCRA) and, most startlingly, for having links to Pakistan. “We have a PIO (Pakistani Intelligence Operative) with us who was reporting across the border, sending videos of the protests led by Wangchuk,” he alleged, also citing Wangchuk’s past visit to Pakistan for a media event and a trip to Bangladesh as suspicious activities.

EXPLOSIVE REVELATION BY LADAKH DGP DR. S.D SINGH JAMWAL:

“We recently arrested a Pakistan Intelligence Operative who was in touch with Sonam Wangchuk and reporting back across. We have a record of this.

He had attended a Dawn event in Pakistan. He also visited Bangladesh.… pic.twitter.com/j7S7YFgdJx

— Abhimanyu Manjhi (@AbhimanyuManjh5) September 27, 2025

Wangchuk’s wife condemned DGP Ladakh’s statements

The administration’s portrayal of Wangchuk was met with disbelief and outrage, not least from his own family. Director of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh (HIAL) and wife of jailed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, has strongly refuted the BJP-led government’s allegations following his detention under the National Security Act. His wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, issued a powerful rebuttal, calling the DGP’s claims a fabrication designed to create a scapegoat.

“We strongly condemn the DGP’s statements. Not only I, but everyone in Ladakh denounces those allegations,” she said.

“This narrative is being fabricated to blame and frame someone, allowing them to do whatever they want… What could Sonam Wangchuk have instigated? He had no idea about all this. He was somewhere else, where he was on a hunger strike… Whatever the DGP is saying, he has an agenda. They don’t want to implement the 6th Schedule under any circumstances and want to make someone a scapegoat.”

Her anguish was coupled with a piercing question that hangs over the events of September 24 that “Who gave the CRPF orders to open fire? Who shoots at their own people, their own citizens?”

Ladakh: On Police’s allegations against Sonam Wangchuk, his wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, says, “We strongly condemn the DGP’s statements. Not only I, but everyone in Ladakh denounces those allegations… This narrative is being fabricated to blame and frame someone, allowing them to… pic.twitter.com/m1o0Ejhl4A

— JK CHANNEL (@jkchanneltv) September 30, 2025

If innovators are treated like criminals, how will India become vishwaguru: Sonam Wangchuk’s wife

Gitanjali Angmo speaking at the Press Club of India on September 30, she declared, “We will use the best legal system to defend him and fight the case. We will not rest till the case is fought and truth has been revealed.” Angmo questioned the government’s sudden shift in stance, pointing out, “HIAL was also given the best eco-project by this government. If he (Sonam) was anti-national, why was the government awarding his efforts? Why did Sonam become an anti-national within a month? This is all being done to frame him.”

She cited Wangchuk’s internationally recognised environmental work. She said “The whole world talks about carbon neutral but Ladakh is carbon negative. People talk about net zero but we are net-positive. If we treat the person behind this good work like a criminal and create an atmosphere of fear with curfew, then how will India become ‘Vishwa Guru’ and how will others get motivated?”

Rejecting allegations of financial irregularities and foreign links, she challenged officials to prove their claims that “I openly challenge anyone who sees any problem in our work. We have facts, evidence and papers which will prove that all these allegations are wrong.”

Addressing FCRA concerns, she clarified that “Our futuristic research has been bought by foreign universities and there is nothing in it to be ashamed of. These (payments) are all covered under service agreements and even the CBI has accepted that there’s been no violation. Rather, it is a matter of pride that the research of an Indian university is being valued and appreciated outside.”

She highlighted HIAL’s local impact, saying, “Our research has been adopted by the UT government. Since last year, the ice stupa has been tendered and implemented across the region. Similarly, the new tourism policy has made passive solar heating mandatory for new hotels and commercial buildings.”

On allegations of Pakistan links, Angmo said Wangchuk had attended a UN-backed climate event in Islamabad and asked, “I want to ask: what is wrong with it? The Hindukush mountains touch eight countries and provide water to more than two billion people. My husband praised the prime minister Narendra Modi’s ‘Mission LIFE’ from the stage.”

She also questioned the home ministry’s claims that “If a Pakistani was seen in Ladakh, why was the safety protocol violated and why was he allowed to roam freely?”

Refuting charges over ‘food sovereignty’ research, she stated that “Food sovereignty which talks about how locals can become self-sufficient has been interpreted as national security to punish my husband. The allegation is baseless and ridiculous.”

Responding to criticism around Wangchuk’s Magsaysay Award, she asked “Out of these 60, 20 have been given Padma Vibushan award. Does that mean that the government gives awards to anti-nationals?”

Finally, addressing the September 24 violence in Leh, where four civilians were killed, she distanced her husband from the events: “Sonam was sitting in the park and he had no idea. My husband stood for Gandhian values. He didn’t indulge in violence or instigation for the last five years. If violence has happened now, he doesn’t have to answer for it. It is the UT administration – the LG and the DGP who have to answer to the people of Ladakh why there was a breach and violence.”

‘If Innovators Are Treated Like Criminals, How Will India Become Vishwaguru?’: Sonam Wangchuk’s Wife Fires Back At Govt https://t.co/7aA4i2IP4y

— Siddharth (@svaradarajan) September 30, 2025

Not political, but procedural: Ladakh UT defends action against Wangchuk

In a formal press statement, the Union Territory of Ladakh administration has defended its recent actions against climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and institutions linked to him, including the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives Ladakh (HIAL) and SECMOL. Officials claimed the crackdown was not politically motivated, but rooted in allegations of “financial irregularities, violations of foreign funding norms, and issuance of unrecognised degrees.”

The administration also accused Wangchuk of making “provocative statements,” allegedly invoking foreign uprisings and calling for an “Arab Spring”-like movement in India.

It further alleged that he encouraged protesters to wear masks and caps to conceal identities and did not attempt to calm an increasingly agitated crowd during recent demonstrations. The government maintained that it had shown flexibility in scheduling dialogue with Ladakhi leaders, while Wangchuk’s continued hunger strike was dismissed as “politically motivated.” Urging the public to remain patient, the administration expressed confidence in the legal process and stated that normalcy would soon be restored in the region.

LAB & KDA will not talks with the centre until Wangchuk’s release

The region’s political leadership closed ranks. Both the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), the two umbrella organisations leading the movement, announced they would not participate in any further talks with the central government until Wangchuk is released and a judicial probe is ordered into the police firing. The LAB explicitly criticised the attempt to label Wangchuk as an “anti-national.”

Acclaimed actor Prakash Raj, who knows Wangchuk personally, took to social media to express his solidarity. “You can cage a bird, but not it’s song,” he wrote. “You can arrest Sonam Wangchuk but you can’t silence the truth he stands for. I know this man. I know what he stands for.”

“You can cage a bird, but not it’s song.”
You can arrest @Wangchuk66 but you can’t silence the truth he stands for. I know this man. I know what he stands for. #LadakhProtests #LadakhStatehood #SonamWangchuk #justasking pic.twitter.com/5PdKdpBlW9

— Prakash Raj (@prakashraaj) September 26, 2025

The situation also brought forth historical parallels. A social media post highlighted that Wangchuk’s own father, Sonam Wangyal, had undertaken hunger strikes in the 1980s for Ladakh’s Scheduled Tribe status. In 1984, then-Prime Minister Indira Gandhi flew to Leh to personally end his fast with a glass of juice and a promise to grant the demand, a stark contrast to the current government’s response.

Sonam Wangchuk’s father Sonam Wangyal went on a hunger strike twice to express Ladakhis demand for Scheduled tribe Status. In 1984 PM Indra Gandhi came to Leh & ended his fast by offering a glass of Juice & promised to grant ST Ladakh. pic.twitter.com/F9nan4Rqoq

— Mohammed Zubair (@zoo_bear) September 26, 2025

SECMOL: under the surveillance of MHA

The crackdown wasn’t limited to Wangchuk’s personal freedom. A day after the violence, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs cancelled the FCRA registration of the Students Educational and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SECMOL), the pioneering NGO Wangchuk founded in 1988.

The MHA cited a series of financial and procedural violations. These included discrepancies in the reporting of a transaction involving the sale of an old bus, and the accidental deposit of local funds into the FCRA account. However, the most politically charged accusation related to a grant of Rs. 4.93 lakh from a Swedish donor. The MHA flagged that the educational program funded by this grant included discussions on topics like climate change, food security, and “sovereignty.”

MHA cancels the FCRA license of Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO. pic.twitter.com/OKK6NlShlo

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) September 25, 2025

While SECMOL maintained the funds were used for purely educational purposes within its charter, the MHA interpreted the mere mention of “sovereignty” as a violation of national interest, declaring that foreign funds cannot be used for such studies. This move was widely seen as an attempt to financially cripple the intellectual and institutional backbone of the Ladakhi movement.

The man and his movement: a legacy of innovation

To understand the gravity of the “anti-national” charge, one must understand who Sonam Wangchuk is. Long before he became the face of a civil rights movement, he was a celebrated education reformer. SECMOL, founded by him and other young Ladakhis, aimed to overhaul an education system that was failing the region’s children.

The SECMOL Alternative School is a marvel of sustainable architecture—a solar-powered, self-sufficient eco-village where students learn practical, environmental, and traditional knowledge alongside modern academics. His invention of the “ice stupa,” a method of creating artificial glaciers to combat water shortages in the high desert, is a globally recognised innovation in climate adaptation.

He is not a activist but an innovator driven by a deep love for his land and its people. His advocacy for the Sixth Schedule stems from a desire to protect Ladakh’s fragile ecology and unique indigenous culture from the pressures of unchecked development and outside influence. To paint such a figure as a foreign-funded agent provocateur is, for many, a profound distortion.

A law for ‘limitless detention’: the dark history of the NSA

The choice to detain Wangchuk under the National Security Act is profoundly telling. The NSA is not a punitive law; it is, by design, a preventive one. But in practice, preventive detention becomes punishment—limitless incarceration justified under the vague pretext of maintaining law and order, with blurred boundaries and little accountability. It allows the state to detain individuals not for a crime they have committed, but for one they might commit. Its history is rooted in the colonial-era laws designed to suppress the freedom struggle.

When the Indira Gandhi government introduced the National Security Act (NSA) in 1980, it was met with fierce resistance. BJP’s own senior leader, Lal Krishna Advani (then a Janata Party leader in the Rajya Sabha) criticised the bill for its political motives and dangerously vague language, cautioning that it could be used to detain anyone involved in political agitation. He spoke from experience, sharing his own re-arrest moments after being released during the Emergency, and condemned the NSA as a tool for “limitless detention.”

He said, “It is also said in the Statement of Objects and Reasons that if anyone agitates, any political agitation takes place, then they can also be arrested.” (Page 200-201 of the RS Debate in Re. National Security [RAJYA SABHA] Ordinance & Bill, 1980)

Four decades later, the same law is being wielded with impunity by a BJP-led government—ironically, the very party Advani helped shape. What was once denounced as a mechanism of authoritarian excess is now normalised, repurposed to stifle dissent, muzzle opposition, and criminalise protest. The warnings voiced in 1980 haven’t just been forgotten—they’ve been reversed.

Over the decades, the law has been repeatedly used against political opponents, activists, and protesters. The Supreme Court has, in several cases, flagged its misuse. In the case of Dr. Kafeel Khan, the Allahabad High Court quashed his NSA detention, noting that his speech gave a “call for national integrity and unity” and that the District Magistrate had engaged in a “selective reading.”

In another case, the Supreme Court ordered the release of a law student, observing that the grounds for his detention were issues of “law and order,” not the graver “public order” required to invoke the NSA.

By invoking this law against Sonam Wangchuk, the government has placed him in the company of those who have been targeted for their political beliefs, bypassing the standard criminal justice system and its safeguards.

The caged song

The detention of Sonam Wangchuk is more than just the arrest of one man. It is a message sent to the people of Ladakh that their democratic aspirations will be met with the full force of the state’s security apparatus. In a region that borders both China and Pakistan, the charge of having “Pakistan links” is the most potent weapon to delegitimise a grassroots movement.

The fundamental questions remain unanswered. What caused a peaceful movement to turn violent? Was the use of lethal force against protesters justified? And can a law designed to protect national security be used to silence a celebrated activist demanding constitutional rights for his people?

Sonam Wangchuk may be in a Jodhpur jail, far from the mountains he has spent his life trying to protect. But as Prakash Raj noted, you can cage the bird, but you cannot cage its song. The song of Ladakh is one of identity, survival, and a deep yearning for a secure future. The question now is whether the Indian state is willing to listen, or if it will only seek to silence the singer.

Related

Centre cancels FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, cites violations including study on ‘sovereignty’

Allahabad HC stays second suspension order against Dr. Kafeel Khan

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

The post How the Centre used a ‘Draconian’ law to silence Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakh’s aspirations appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The government, which had accused Wangchuk of inciting the violence through “provocative statements,” issued the cancellation order on September 25, 2025. The order details several financial and procedural violations, culminating in the immediate termination of the NGO’s ability to receive foreign funds.

The action followed a Show Cause Notice issued to SECMOL on August 20, 2025, to which the association replied on September 19. After examining the NGO’s response, the ministry concluded that multiple violations were established.

Ministry findings on financial irregularities and improper disclosure of funds

The MHA order outlines specific instances of financial mismanagement and non-compliance with the FCRA.

The ministry pointed to a sum of Rs. 3.5 lakh deposited by Sonam Wangchuk into SECMOL’s FCRA account during the 2021-22 financial year, terming it a violation of Section 17 of the Act.

SECMOL, in its defence, stated the amount was Rs. 3,35,000 and represented the “sale proceeds of the old bus procured on 14.07.2015 out of FCRA’s fund only.” The organisation argued that proceeds from assets bought with foreign funds must be deposited back into the FCRA account.

However, the ministry found this reply to be “not tenable.” The order states that while the amount was declared in the annual returns as a “foreign Donation” from Sonam Wangchuk, the credit entry was not found in the FCRA bank account. The ministry concluded, “It seems that the amount has been received in cash in violation of section 17 of the Act which is not properly disclosed by the association in its reply.”

It further noted that the failure to reflect this transaction in the FCRA account also violates Section 18 of the Act.

MHA cancels the FCRA license of Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO. pic.twitter.com/OKK6NlShlo

— Press Trust of India (@PTI_News) September 25, 2025

Mixing local and foreign funds

Another violation cited was the deposit of Rs. 54,600 in local funds into the FCRA account during 2020-21 by three individuals. SECMOL admitted the error, explaining that the money came from volunteers for their food and accommodation and was “mistakenly transferred into our FCRA account instead of the local account,” despite clear instructions on its website. The MHA order noted,

“As admitted by the association, local fund were credited into FCRA account in violation of section 17 of the Act.”

Ministry alleges misuse of funds for ‘Sovereignty’ study; NGO clarifies donation was for ‘Food Security’ awareness.

Perhaps the most serious violation detailed in the order relates to a grant of ₹4,93,205 received from a Swedish donor, Framtidsjorden, during the 2021-22 financial year.

SECMOL clarified that the funds were for an educational program to create awareness among youth on issues like migration, climate change, food security, and “Sovereignty.”

The organisation in its reply stated that “we received Rs. 4,93,205/- from Framtidsjorden for educational program for youth under FE project for creating awareness among youth on issues such migration, climate change, global warming, food security and Sovereignty and organic farming through different workshops and trainings. The funds were utilised strictly in line with the organisation’s objectives and for the specifics purposes for which they were allocated. Hence, all these activities were educational and there was no violation.”

Page 3 of the Ministry Order dated September 25, 2025

The ministry seized on this specific point in its findings. The order states that the association admitted the donation was for a study on the “Sovereignty of the country” and that the funds were used in line with the donor’s objectives. The ministry unequivocally concluded that this activity was illegal, stating,

“The Foreign Contribution cannot be accepted for study on Sovereignty of the nation. This act of the association is against the national interest of the Country in violation of section 12(4)(f)(i) of the Act.”

Concluding its findings, the MHA stated that in view of the violations, the competent authority was cancelling SECMOL’s FCRA registration with immediate effect.

Background: unrest and protests in Leh

The cancellation comes in the immediate aftermath of significant unrest in Leh. On September 24, a large protest, primarily led by youth, turned violent. The demonstration was organised in solidarity with Sonam Wangchuk, who had been on a hunger strike to press for longstanding demands, including statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution for safeguarding land, culture, and employment.

Protestors reportedly vandalised property and torched vehicles, leading to clashes with security forces who responded with tear gas and firing. However, people died and dozens were injured in the violence. The central government claimed the “mob was incited by Shri Sonam Wangchuk through his provocative statements,” an allegation Wangchuk has denied, stating he has always appealed for peace.

Following the violence, the local administration-imposed restrictions on public gatherings and internet services. The next round of talks between Ladakhi representatives and the MHA is scheduled for October 6.

Related

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

Crushing voices: The detention of Sonam Wangchuk and supporters at Ladakh Bhawan

Delhi Chalo padyatra: Sonam Wangchuk begins indefinite fast at Ladakh Bhawan

The post Centre cancels FCRA licence of Sonam Wangchuk’s NGO, cites violations including study on ‘sovereignty’ appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The fast concluded after Union Home Ministry officials, led by Prashant Lokhande, Joint Secretary for Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh, delivered a letter to Wangchuk. This letter confirmed that the high-powered committee (HPC) on Ladakh, headed by Nityanand Rai, Minister of State for Home Affairs, would meet on December 3, 2024, to restart talks. Lokhande personally handed Wangchuk a glass of juice to mark the end of the fast. Wangchuk, alongside other Ladakhi activists, accepted the gesture, signalling the temporary resolution of their immediate demand for the resumption of dialogue.

(Details of Sonam Wangchuk’s fast may be read here, here and here) 

A renewed hope for meaningful dialogue

Wangchuk, addressing the press through a live stream on his YouTube channel, expressed cautious optimism. “Our main appeal has been resolved,” he said, referring to the renewal of talks that had been stalled for months. “I hope both sides engage in these discussions with solidarity and good faith, aiming for outcomes that benefit not just Ladakh but the entire nation.”

ON 16th DAY TODAY OUR FAST ENDED
As Joint Secretary Ministry of Home Affairs brought me the notification for resumption of talks between Ladakhi leaders & Government of India.
I hope the talks will be held in mutual trust & will result in a happy ending for all &
I will not have… pic.twitter.com/4BUrhXJWYc

— Sonam Wangchuk (@Wangchuk66) October 21, 2024

Other leaders from the Ladakh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), who had been fasting alongside Wangchuk, shared his sentiment. Sajjad Kargili, a member of the KDA and the 17-member HPC, noted that their primary demand was the resumption of meaningful talks on Ladakh’s development. “We hope the leadership will hold crucial discussions on our four demands. The date has been set, and we look forward to participating in these talks,” Kargili said.

Leaders like Tsering Dorjay Lakruk, co-chairman of LAB, echoed these hopes, expressing gratitude to those who supported their movement. “It was a true display of unity in diversity in India,” Wangchuk added, acknowledging the solidarity shown by students, NGOs, and citizens across the country. The fast, though arduous, symbolised a collective desire for Ladakh’s future to be shaped by its people.

Looking forward, cautiously optimistic

Though relieved that their primary demand had been met, the Ladakhi leaders made it clear that the journey is far from over. Chering Dorjay Lakruk, president of the Ladakh Buddhist Association (LBA), emphasised that while talks would resume, their demands were yet to be fully addressed. “We hope that these talks will lead to a meaningful solution,” he said, stressing the importance of sustained and sincere dialogue with the Union government.

Ladakh’s MP Mohmad Haneefa also voiced his hope that the government would take their concerns seriously and work towards a lasting resolution. The fast, he noted, had become necessary after months of silence from the government following the Lok Sabha elections.

As the Ladakhi delegation prepares to return home, Wangchuk expressed hope that such drastic measures would not be required again. “I hope this is the last time we need to fast for our demands,” he said. Though they leave with their “main appeal fulfilled,” the Ladakhi people remain cautious, hoping that the upcoming talks in December will bring tangible outcomes for Ladakh and the preservation of its fragile environment.

Widespread solidarity for Sonam Wangchuk’s cause

On October 20, climate activist Sonam Wangchuk received a powerful show of support when Jagadguru Shankaracharya visited his protest site at Martyrs Park in Leh. The visit marked the 15th day of Wangchuk’s indefinite fast, which he had undertaken along with 20 fellow Ladakhis to press for the implementation of the sixth schedule in Ladakh. Wangchuk shared his gratitude via social media, stating, “From villages bordering China and Pakistan to the city of Leh, people observed a fast in solidarity. In Delhi, hundreds came to join us, only to be forcibly detained and bundled into buses.” The Shankaracharya’s visit further underscored the growing national support for Ladakh’s struggle.

15th DAY ON SALT & WATER
On the 15th day of fast Jagadguru Shankaracharya ji visited the anshan place at martyrs park in Leh to support the movement.
Villages in Ladakh observed fast from those bordering China & Pakistan to the city of Leh.
In Delhi 100s of people came to join… pic.twitter.com/4C52OfzchO

— Sonam Wangchuk (@Wangchuk66) October 20, 2024

Two days earlier, on October 18, the National Alliance of People’s Movements (NAPM) had also expressed solidarity with the Ladakhi people’s demand to be included in the sixth schedule of the Constitution. The NAPM, which represents progressive organisations and movements across India, urged the Union government to fulfil its promise of meaningful dialogue with Ladakhi leaders. The alliance warned that the ecological and cultural fabric of the Himalayas is at risk due to “destructive development.” In a statement, NAPM expressed shock that Wangchuk and his supporters had been forced to launch another indefinite fast after previous assurances from the government were left unfulfilled.

NAPM activists, including prominent figures like Prafulla Samantara—who led a historic 12-year legal battle to protect Indigenous land rights—stood in solidarity with the Ladakhi cause. Through a video message, Samantara and other activists vowed to fast from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. in support of Wangchuk.

Embed video shared by ma’am on whatsapp

Activists such as Medha Patkar, Arundhati Dhuru, Suniti S R, Neelam Ahluwalia, and others also lent their voices to the movement, calling on Indian citizens to rally behind Ladakh’s demands. NAPM emphasised the need for the government to engage in peaceful dialogue with Ladakh’s people, respecting their constitutional rights and their call to preserve both Ladakh’s natural beauty and its Indigenous communities.

Statement from NAPM –

“We also appeal to all Indian citizens, who support decentralised development planning and employment opportunities for locals – a demand being raised all across India, to support the demands of the people of Ladakh,”https://t.co/prWMe4rZGW

— NAPM India (@napmindia) October 11, 2024

In addition to national organisations, regional groups have also shown their support. On October 14, Friends of Ladakh-Bengaluru organised a one-day fast at Freedom Park to back Wangchuk’s mission. The group echoed his call for Ladakh to be included in the sixth schedule, which would grant Ladakhis greater control over their resources and ensure sustainable development. This wasn’t the first time Wangchuk had taken such a stand—in March, he completed a 21-day climate fast in Ladakh to remind the Union government of its promise to protect the region’s fragile ecosystem and empower its people.

Related:

Delhi Chalo padyatra: Sonam Wangchuk begins indefinite fast at Ladakh Bhawan

Why is Ladakh Protesting?

Fulfill Promises Made To People Of Ladakh: Sonam Wangchuk In Fresh Appeal To Modi

The post A victory for Ladakh’s voices: Sonam Wangchuk and Ladakhi activists break 16-day fast as union government agrees to renew talks on demands appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 A peaceful protest met with force

The protests outside Ladakh Bhawan were part of a larger movement led by Wangchuk, who began an indefinite hunger strike on October 6. His primary demand is the inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution of India, which would grant the region constitutional safeguards similar to those afforded to tribal areas in the north-eastern states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. These provisions establish autonomous councils with legislative, judicial, executive, and financial powers, giving these regions control over their own affairs and protecting their cultural identities.

Despite the peaceful nature of the demonstration being led by Wangchuk, the Delhi Police detained Wangchuk and about 20 to 25 protesters, including women, who had come to express solidarity with the cause. Pursuant to the detention, the Delhi police, which comes under the control of the union home minister, cited the absence of permission to protest outside Ladakh Bhawan, emphasising that the application to hold a protest at Jantar Mantar was still under consideration. By 11 a.m. on Sunday morning, approximately 100 supporters had gathered at the protest site. However, the police began blocking roads and making detentions around 10:30 a.m., effectively stifling the gathering. The protesters, who maintained that they were not raising slogans but merely sitting peacefully, were forcefully removed and taken to various police stations.

 Article 19 of the Constitution under blatant attack

This state action against Wangchuk and his supporters is not just an isolated event—it strikes at the heart of Article 19 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees citizens the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly. The police’s justification for their actions was the imposition of Section 163 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023, a law often used to prevent large gatherings and maintain public order. However, the overuse of Section 163of the BNSS, which is the equivalent of Section 144 of the CrPC, especially in situations where no immediate threat to law and order exists, raises serious concerns about the state’s willingness to uphold democratic rights.

In his public statements, Wangchuk expressed his deep disappointment in the state’s actions, calling it “a sad day for democracy.” He rightly pointed out that Section163 of the BNSS, in its original intent, is meant to be a temporary measure invoked only in exceptional situations. Its permanent imposition in New Delhi’s district, as reported by Wangchuk, is contrary to the democratic spirit of the country and a clear violation of the rights guaranteed under Article 19.

Wangchuk’s protest, which had been a silent fast to “Save Ladakh, Save Himalayas,” was not only a call for statehood and special constitutional protections for Ladakh but also a broader critique of the government’s failure to engage constructively with marginalised communities. The imposition of force against non-violent demonstrators represents an alarming trend in India, where peaceful protests are increasingly met with state-sanctioned repression.

The push for Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule

At the core of Wangchuk’s protest is the demand for Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. This inclusion would grant the regions indigenous and tribal communities’ greater autonomy over their land, resources, and cultural identity. Following the abrogation of Article 370, Ladakh has been left in a vulnerable position, and the local population fears the loss of their traditional rights. Wangchuk, along with the Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance, has been advocating for statehood, the establishment of a public service commission for Ladakh, and separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil districts.

The group’s demands are not new—they have been persistently pushing for these changes ever since Ladakh was carved out as a Union Territory in 2019. Wangchuk’s march from Leh to Delhi, which culminated in the current protest, is an attempt to draw the attention of top leaders, including Prime Minister Narendra Modi, to these critical issues. However, instead of engaging in dialogue, the government’s response has been to suppress the movement through detentions and legal manoeuvres. (Detailed reports may be read here and here)

 A pattern of state overreach

The detainment of Wangchuk and his supporters on October 13 was not their first encounter with the police. On September 30, while marching to Delhi from Leh, the group was detained at the Singhu border by the Delhi Police and only released on the night of October 2. This repeated use of force against peaceful demonstrators is emblematic of a larger pattern of state overreach. In a democracy, peaceful dissent is a vital component of governance, but the state’s response in these instances appears to be aimed at stifling the voices of those who challenge its authority.

The Delhi High Court is now involved, with the Leh Apex Body filing a petition seeking permission for the protesters to hold a peaceful demonstration at Jantar Mantar. The court has ordered responses from the Delhi Police and the government by October 16, with a hearing scheduled for October 22. This legal battle will serve as a litmus test for the judiciary’s role in safeguarding democratic freedoms.

The erosion of democratic values

Wangchuk’s hunger strike and the protest outside Ladakh Bhawan highlight the deepening crisis in Indian democracy. The increasing use of legal provisions like Section 163 of the BNSS to stifle dissent, the detainment of peaceful protesters, and the state’s refusal to engage with legitimate demands all point to a dangerous erosion of democratic values. The right to peaceful assembly and free expression is at the core of any democratic society. When the state repeatedly undermines these rights, it signals a move towards authoritarianism, where dissent is treated as a threat rather than a vital component of governance.

Wangchuk’s statement that the detentions were not only “sad for us but sad for democracy” underscores the gravity of the situation. By silencing those who peacefully express their concerns, the state is effectively turning its back on the very constitutional principles it is meant to uphold. Instead of finalising a meeting with Wangchuk and hearing the citizens of India out regarding their demands, the union government is focussing on trampling their constitutional rights.

The detention of Sonam Wangchuk and his supporters is more than just an isolated event—it is a symptom of a broader problem in India’s democratic framework. The struggle for Ladakh’s inclusion in the Sixth Schedule, the demand for statehood, and the protection of tribal rights are all legitimate issues that deserve attention, not suppression. As India continues to navigate its complex political landscape, it must remember that the true strength of its democracy lies in its ability to tolerate, respect, and engage with dissent. When the state instead resorts to detentions and force, it is not just choking individual rights but on the very foundations of democracy itself.

Related:

Delhi Chalo padyatra: Sonam Wangchuk begins indefinite fast at Ladakh Bhawan

When the state turns rogue even protests dry up, Salutes & Apologies Professor Saibaba!

Major need for reform in information commissions: RTI report card on the performance, 2023-24

“Hungry Cannot Wait”: SC sets final deadline for Ration Cards to Migrant Workers

Assam detention camps tighten rules, leaving families struggling to visit loved ones detained in Matia transit camp

The post Crushing voices: The detention of Sonam Wangchuk and supporters at Ladakh Bhawan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Undeterred, Wangchuk and around other protesters started their fast at Ladakh Bhawan, singing protest songs and raising slogans like “Bharat Mata Ki Jai” and “Save Ladakh, Save Himalaya”. This move follows Wangchuk’s “Delhi Chalo Padayatra,” a month-long march from Leh advocating for statehood, a public service commission, and separate Lok Sabha seats for Leh and Kargil districts.

After the Delhi police denied permission to the Sonam Wangchuk and his co-protesters’ request to hold demonstration/Anshan at Jantar Mantar, New Delhi on October 5, 2024.

Sharing a copy of the letter sent by Delhi Police, Wangchuk, in a post on X (formerly Twitter) said “finally this morning we got this rejection letter for the officially designated place for protests. If Jantar Mantar is not allowed then please tell us which place is allowed. We want to abide by all laws and still express our grievance in a peaceful way. Why is it so difficult to follow the path of Gandhi in his own country. There must be a way.”

ANOTHER REJECTION ANOTHER FRUSTRATION
Finally this morning we got this rejection letter for the officially designated place for protests.
If Jantar Mantar is not allowed then please tell us which place is allowed. We want to abide by all laws and still express our grievance in a… pic.twitter.com/FLnyCdA7KI

— Sonam Wangchuk (@Wangchuk66) October 6, 2024

Delhi Police rejected climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s request to protest at Jantar Mantar, citing non-compliance with guidelines set by the Supreme Court in 2018. The guidelines require a 10-day notice period for protest applications, which wasn’t met. Additionally, Delhi Police noted that the planned demonstration lacked a specific timeframe, making it an open-ended, prolonged event, which isn’t permitted under existing laws and guidelines.

Delhi Police mentioned in its rejection order dated October 5, that the request was not in according with the guidelines framed in compliance of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India’s order dated 23.07.2018 in W.P. (C) No. 1153 of 2017 and other connected Civil Appeals No. 862, 863 and 864 of 2018. Delhi Police pointed out that the “applications for holding any protest/demonstration at Jantar Mantar shall be move at least 10 days prior to the planned event’s date.”

Notably, Delhi Police also said that planned-demonstration lack timeframe and the request of the protesters could not be acceded to, as this Anshan is going to be prolonged one. Delhi Police added that “there is no provision under the extent laws, rules and guidelines under which permission can be granted for any kind of ‘anshan’, let alone an open ended, without timeframe, mass event, as discernible from the application.”

However, on Saturday, a majority of the protesters returned to Ladakh while the remaining stayed back to join Wangchuk for the fast at Ladakh Bhawan.

Wangchuk on hunger strike at Ladakh Bhawan

Following the same, while citing frustration over not being granted an audience with India’s top leadership and permission to hold anshan at Jantar Mantar, on October 6, Wangchuk and around 18 people sat close to the gate of Ladakh Bhawan, singing the Hindi version of ‘We Shall Overcome’, and raised slogans such as ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai”, “Jai Ladakh ” and “Save Ladakh, Save Himalaya”

Despite being denied permission and virtually detained at Ladakh Bhawan, Wangchuk and 18 around others, including 75-year-olds and women, began their hunger strike at Ladakh Bhawan following the rejection from Delhi Police. Their 1,000 km, 32-day march from Leh to Delhi showcases unwavering resolve.

Wangchuk writes on X that “So after trying everything possible to find a legitimate place for our anshan fast in New Delhi, we have finally decided to start our fast here at Ladakh Bhavan New Delhi where I was virtually detained for the last 4 days. Among us we have 75-year-olds, women and men who walked for 32 days from Leh to Delhi… roughly 1,000 km.”

Link:

PADYATRIS ON FAST AT LADAKH BHAVAN
So after trying everything possible to find a legitimate place for our anshan fast in New Delhi, we have finally decided to start our fast here at Ladakh Bhavan New Delhi where I was virtually detained for the last 4 days. Among us we have 75… pic.twitter.com/FeB2phQ2e5

— Sonam Wangchuk (@Wangchuk66) October 6, 2024

Hindustan Times reported how, Wangchuk took to X on Saturday night and said that his team was looking for a place to protest all day but couldn’t find one. He also said that when they broke their fast at Rajghat, they were assured of an appointment with the top leadership within two days but it did not happen, forcing him to start the indefinite fast again.

The march’s objectives and demands

The Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance are championing a four-point agenda to safeguard Ladakh’s interests. Key Demands include Statehood for Ladakh, seeking greater self-governance, Constitutional Protections under the Sixth Schedule, to preserve tribal and cultural rights, Public Service Commission, for streamlined recruitment and administration, and Separate Lok Sabha Seats, for enhanced representation of Leh and Kargil. This agenda is central to the ongoing padyatra, a peaceful protest march from Leh to Delhi, led by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, emphasizing Ladakh’s unique needs and aspirations. The marchers aim to secure a better future for Ladakh, addressing concerns around autonomy, environmental protection, and cultural preservation.

Related:

SG Mehta declares in Delhi High Court that Sonam Wangchuk has been freed from detention, media reports suggest police control endures

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

March to border, relay fast on climate change and demands for Ladhakh to continue as climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ends hunger strike after 21 days

The post Delhi Chalo padyatra: Sonam Wangchuk begins indefinite fast at Ladakh Bhawan appeared first on SabrangIndia.

SG Mehta explained that the prohibitory order, initially enacted on September 30, was no longer applicable due to changing circumstances. He noted that around 120 individuals from Ladakh, including Wangchuk, had been detained by police at the Delhi border while marching to the capital to demand constitutional protections under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. However, as per a report of The Hindu, Sonam Wangchuk’s movements continued to be restricted by police and security agencies.

Background:

A petition had been filed before the Delhi High Court seeking release of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and others, who were detained at Delhi’s Singhu border on the night of September 30, 2024. In a questionable late-night operation, before either he or other activists could enter the national capital, Delhi Police detained them. The foot march was scheduled to end at Rajghat on Gandhi Jayanti to mark the birth anniversary of the father of the nation on October 2. The petition filed for their release was mentioned before the bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela by advocate Vikram Hegde on October 1, 2024. However, an urgent hearing of the plea was declined.  (A detailed report may be read here)

Court proceedings on detention and prohibitory order

During the court hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta informed the bench that the prohibitory order issued on September 30 had been withdrawn due to changed circumstances. He stated, “The (prohibitory) order which was passed on September 30 now stands withdrawn in view of changed circumstances as they exist now. So far as persons who were allegedly detained, it was not detention in that sense, but they are also out.” He added that the detained individuals had visited Rajghat for about two hours, where they submitted a memorandum that was accepted by the Ministry of Home Affairs.

The court subsequently closed the proceedings on petitions filed by social activist Azad, who had been working closely with Wangchuk, and lawyer Mustafa Haji, the legal advisor to the Leh Apex Body, after their representatives confirmed the release of the detained individuals.

However, Advocate Prashant Bhushan, representing another petitioner, contended that some individuals still wished to gather at Jantar Mantar to raise awareness but were under restraint. He asserted that Wangchuk was “not totally free,” stating, “According to our information, he is not totally free. They are not allowing Sonam Wangchuk to meet his other associates. They are kept in different places. Sonam Wangchuk has been taken apparently to Ladakh Bhawan and others are kept in Ambedkar Bhawan… There are still some restrictions. Let Mr. Sonam Wangchuk be produced in court.”

In response to Bhushan’s claims, Justice Manmohan questioned the need to summon someone already declared free, emphasising the Solicitor General’s prior statement confirming their release. SG Mehta objected to the assertion made by Bhushan, labelling it a “false statement.” He added, “This petitioner is an advocate practicing in Bilaspur, Himachal Pradesh, and one of the persons marching with the group. Somebody in Himachal says as per my information they are not free and those who are with him say everyone is free. They want to keep the pot boiling.”

Bhushan indicated that he would file an affidavit to support his claims and requested the court to postpone the hearing until Friday. The court responded that if the Solicitor General’s statement was found to be false, they would take appropriate action. Furthermore, Bhushan argued that the prohibitory order violated Supreme Court decisions, asserting that individuals could not be detained for more than 48 hours without legal justification.

Mehta clarified that the prohibitory order had been officially withdrawn on the night of October 2. Initially, the order issued by the Delhi Police had directed the imposition of Section 163 (formerly Section 144 of the CrPC) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 across New Delhi, North and Central districts, and at police stations bordering other states from September 30 to October 5.

It is to be noted that as per a report in The Hindu, Sonam Wangchuk’s movements continued to be restricted by police and security agencies. On Thursday, October 3, 2024, The Hindu had reported that around 5 p.m., security personnel in plain clothes stopped Wangchuk from leaving the Ladakh Bhavan. A significant police presence was deployed outside the government guest house, with barricades placed at the entrance.

Detention as the response for march for Constitutional safeguards?

Activist Wangchuk had led a march of approximately 150 people from Ladakh on September 1, advocating for constitutional protections for the region. He and his delegation were detained by Delhi Police upon arriving at the Delhi-Haryana border in Singhu on September 30. The march aimed to culminate on October 2 at Rajghat, coinciding with Mahatma Gandhi’s birth anniversary, where a sit-in was planned at Jantar Mantar.

However, the planned sit-in protest could not take place as the union had imposed prohibitory orders in Delhi, which were removed after October 2 had passed and the participants had been detained. After being held for nearly 40 hours, Mr. Wangchuk and other delegation members were escorted to Rajghat on October 2 under heavy police presence.

Ladakh Member of Parliament Mohmad Haneefa told The Hindu that he himself was detained for a day when he tried to reach the Singhu border to support the protesters from Kargil. He sought clarification from the government, emphasising that he was merely assisting his constituents as an elected representative. He has received assurances from the Union Government regarding a forthcoming meeting with either the Prime Minister or the Home Minister.

In reaction to the police’s actions, Rahul Gandhi criticised the government’s handling of the situation on X (formerly Twitter). He stated that the “Chakravyuh” would be broken, much like during the farmers’ protests, and that the government would ultimately have to heed Ladakh’s demands. He condemned the detention of elderly citizens, labelling it “unacceptable” for peacefully marching for their environmental and constitutional rights.

What do the citizens demand?

Since the withdrawal of Jammu and Kashmir’s special status under Article 370 in 2019, and the bifurcation of the region into two Union Territories, Ladakh has witnessed numerous protests. The Leh Apex Body and the Kargil Democratic Alliance, two influential civil society organisations in the region, are demanding statehood, inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. The sixth Schedule to the Constitution provides for implementation of specific measures to have an autonomous administration in tribal areas to protect the rights and identity of locals. At present, it is applicable only to Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram in northeast India. Few months ago, Wangchuk had been on a prolonged hunger strike to press for his demands which also include environmental protection in Ladakh. Last month, Wangchuk and others began the foot march to national capital.

The protesters participating in the March are calling for the resumption of talks through the high-powered committee (HPC), led by Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai, which was formed in January 2023 to address local grievances. The committee last convened in March 2024, shortly before the general elections.

Related:

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

Fulfill Promises Made To People Of Ladakh: Sonam Wangchuk In Fresh Appeal To Modi

March to border, relay fast on climate change and demands for Ladhakh to continue as climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ends hunger strike after 21 days

The post SG Mehta declares in Delhi High Court that Sonam Wangchuk has been freed from detention, media reports suggest police control endures appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The sixth Schedule to the Constitution provides for implementation of specific measures to have an autonomous administration in tribal areas to protect the rights and identity of locals. At present, it is applicable only to Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura and Mizoram in northeast India. Few months ago,  Wangchuk had been on a prolonged hunger strike to press for his demands which also include environmental protection in Ladakh. Last month, Wangchuk and others began the foot march to national capital.

In a questionable late night operation, before either he and other activists could enter the national capital, Delhi Police detained them. The foot march was scheduled to end at Rajghat on Gandhi Jayanti to mark the birth anniversary of the father of the nation on October 2.

Late last night, at 10.30 a.m. here is what Sonam Wangchuk said on X (formerly twitter):

I AM BEING DETAINED…
along with 150 padyatris
at Delhi Border, by a police force of 100s some say 1,000.
Many elderly men & women in their 80s and few dozen Army veterans…
Our fate is unknown.
We were on a most peaceful march to Bapu’s Samadhi… in the largest democracy… pic.twitter.com/iPZOJE5uuM

— Sonam Wangchuk (@Wangchuk66) September 30, 2024

“I am being detained..along with 150 padyatris at Delhi Border, by a police force of 100s, some say 1,000. Many elderly men and women in their 80s and some Army veterans…Our fate is unknown. We were on a most peaceful march to Bapuy’s Samadhi..in the largest democracy in the world, the mother of democracy…Hey Ram.”

Echoing Gandhi’s last words as he was felled by the bullets of assassin Nathuram Godse, Wangchuk’s arrest has drawn widespread condemnation on social media. The legacy print media have played it down, however.

The petition for their release was mentioned before the Bench of Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela by advocate Vikram Hegde. However, an urgent hearing of the plea was declined. It is now likely to come up for hearing on October 3.

Apart from seeking the release of Wangchuk and others, the plea has also sought directions for permitting the activists to enter Delhi “for the purpose of raising their demands peacefully”.

“Permit the group of persons, including senior citizens, led by Mr Sonam Wangchuk to assemble peacefully in a designated area,” the plea states.

The advocate who filed it is Mustafa Haji, who has stated that he has been closely involved with the movement for environmental protection and democratic representation in Ladakh. “A group of about 150 persons started on a foot march (pad yatra) from Leh to Delhi on 01.09.2024. The purpose of their march is to make a representation to the Union Government in Delhi on the occasion of Gandhi Jayanti, inter alia seeking environmental protection, sixth schedule status for Ladakh, Statehood and greater democratic representation,” the plea states.

Incidentally, as news of the peaceful march picked up on social media the Delhi police was quick to act, repressing freedoms. The prohibitory order issued by Delhi Police on September 30 against assembly of five or more persons has also been challenged in the plea.

Related:

Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi

Fulfill Promises Made To People Of Ladakh: Sonam Wangchuk In Fresh Appeal To Modi

March to border, relay fast on climate change and demands for Ladhakh to continue as climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ends hunger strike after 21 days

The post Delhi High Court Petition against detention of Ladakh climate activist Sonam Wangchuk appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Background

On September 9, 2024, Sonam Wangchuk, a well-known climate activist and innovator, made a compelling appeal to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to include Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution. This provision would grant law-making powers to local leaders, aiming to protect Ladakh’s unique land and cultural identity amid increasing external pressures and environmental challenges. Wangchuk’s request reflects a broader movement in Ladakh advocating for greater autonomy and the preservation of its distinct heritage.

Historical and Political Context

The abrogation of Article 370: In August 2019, the Indian government abrogated Article 370, which granted special status to Jammu and Kashmir, including Ladakh. This move led to the bifurcation of the region into two Union Territories: Jammu and Kashmir, with a legislature, and Ladakh, without one. The initial excitement in Leh over the announcement quickly dissipated as it became clear that Ladakh was not included in the Sixth Schedule, leading to widespread disappointment and the formation of the Leh Apex Body (LAB) to advocate for greater protections.

Recommendations and government committees: In September 2019, the National Commission for Scheduled Tribes recommended including Ladakh under the Sixth Schedule to protect the region’s tribal culture and land rights. This recommendation was based on the high percentage of Scheduled Tribes in Ladakh and the need for safeguarding against outside land purchases.

In response to ongoing protests, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) established a high-powered committee in January 2023, led by Minister of State for Home Nityanand Rai, to address key issues in Ladakh. However, progress has been slow, and by April 2024, Union Home Minister Amit Shah indicated that the prospects for Ladakh achieving Sixth Schedule status or statehood were unlikely. This led to increased frustration among Ladakhi leaders and residents.

The foot march initiative

Launch of the march: The padyatra, or foot march, commenced on September 1, 2024, from Leh, with Wangchuk and around 75 volunteers embarking on a journey to New Delhi. This march is not only a physical trek but a symbolic act of resistance and advocacy. The participants aim to urge the central government to resume discussions with Ladakh’s leadership and address their longstanding demands. Wangchuk and his team are covering approximately 25 kilometres each day, enduring the challenging terrain and weather conditions of the high-altitude regions. The march is set to continue until October 2, Gandhi Jayanti, when they hope to reach the national capital and present their demands directly to the government.

Past engagements and government response: Wangchuk highlighted that despite submitting a detailed memorandum of demands to the Prime Minister during his visit to Dras for Kargil Vijay Diwas in July, he had yet to receive a response. This memorandum included calls for inclusion under the Sixth Schedule, which Wangchuk argues is crucial for Ladakh’s ecological and cultural preservation. (Detailed reports can be read here, here, and here.)

It is essential to note that recently, the government announced the creation of five new districts in Ladakh: Zanskar, Drass, Sham, Nubra, and Changthang. Wangchuk and his supporters have expressed concerns about whether these districts will be granted real decision-making powers or merely function as administrative units. The creation of these districts could be viewed as a response to ongoing protests, but the real test will be if they align with the demands for autonomy under the Sixth Schedule. 

The march’s objectives and demands

Four-point agenda: The ongoing padyatra is organised by the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and the Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), which have been advocating for-

1. Statehood for Ladakh: The demand for Ladakh to be granted statehood to allow greater self-governance.
2. Constitutional Protections under the Sixth Schedule: Inclusion under the Sixth Schedule to protect tribal and cultural rights.
3. Public Service Commission: The establishment of a Public Service Commission to oversee recruitment and administration in Ladakh.
4. Separate Lok Sabha Seats: Creation of separate parliamentary constituencies for Leh and Kargil to ensure better representation.

The padyatra has received support from various sections of society, including retired soldiers, women, and the elderly. Former Jammu and Kashmir Governor Satya Pal Malik has announced his intention to join the march in October 2024. This growing support highlights the widespread discontent and desire for greater autonomy among Ladakhis.

Furthermore, Ladakh faces significant ecological challenges due to its fragile environment and the impacts of climate change. Wangchuk has repeatedly stressed the region’s vulnerability, which is exacerbated by industrial activities. He argues that the Sixth Schedule is essential to safeguard the region from exploitative practices and preserve its environmental and cultural integrity.

The inclusion of Ladakh in the Sixth Schedule is also seen as a measure to protect the cultural identity of its tribal communities. The region is home to several tribal groups, including the Balti, Beda, Bot, Brokpa, Drokpa, Changpa, Garra, Mon, and Purigpa. These communities face risks from outside influences that could threaten their traditional ways of life.

Future Outlook

The outcome of this extensive march remains uncertain. The ongoing political attention in Jammu and Kashmir and the ongoing elections could overshadow Ladakh’s demands. However, the march serves as a powerful demonstration of the region’s determination to secure its rights and autonomy. As the padyatra progresses toward Delhi, the participants hope to bring their concerns to the national stage and urge the central government to address their demands effectively.

Related:

Why is Ladakh Protesting?

Section 144, internet suspension imposed ahead of Ladakh’s Pashmina March, march to continue

Fulfill Promises Made To People Of Ladakh: Sonam Wangchuk In Fresh Appeal To Modi

Agitation Likely To Intensify In Ladakh: KDA Calls For Half-Day Strike In Kargil Today

The post Ladakh’s fight for autonomy: Sonam Wangchuk leads foot march to Delhi appeared first on SabrangIndia.

After the move by the district administration, Sonam Wangchuk took to X, formerly Twitter, to write that Leh was being turned into a ‘warzone’, “LEH IS BEING TURNED INTO A WAR ZONE with disproportionate force, barricades, smoke grenades. Attempts to arrest peaceful youth leaders even singers continue. Seems they want to turn a most peaceful movement violent & then brand Ladakhis as anti-nationals. Govt seems worried only about Ladakh’s effects on their votes and on mining lobbies… not the people here nor even national security.”

These measures are said to be precautionary measures ahead of the planned Pashmina March which was to take place in areas near the Line of Actual Control (LAC), in the  Changthang region of Ladakh.   The march was also against alleged Chinese encroachments into Ladakh’s grazing area.

Additionally, mobile data services in Leh will undergo a temporary suspension and reduced speed following police orders. District magistrate Santosh Sukhdeva stated that there was evidence for potential disruptions to peace and public order in the district which is what led to these measures.

As of now, the District Magistrate has declared that no procession, rally, march, or similar activities shall be conducted without prior approval. It also specifies that people are not permitted to use vehicles with mounted loudspeakers or any other loudspeaker without prior approval. Interestingly, the public order has also mentioned that the no one shall make any statements which could potentially ‘disturb the communal harmony and public tranquillity’, and says that any such move would be a law and order issue.

This news comes in as 250-300 women ended their  10-day fast, fast after they continued the relay fast after Wangchuk,  according to Economic Times.

The Leh and Kargil Democratic Alliance have been holding protest demonstrations and hunger strikes demanding statehood for Ladakh, which is now a union territory, and also demanding its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the constitution. An engineer by profession and a social reformer Wangchuk is also a winner of the prestigious Ramon Magsaysay Award, is also part of the group leading the protests.

The Pashmina March was reportedly inspired by Mahatma Gandhi,  Wangchuk stated, according to PTI, “We are followers of Gandhi’s Satyagraha. We are demanding the fulfilment of the promises made to us by this (BJP) government through its manifestos which led its candidates to win parliamentary polls and hill council polls in Leh.”

The protests appear to be gaining support outside of Ladakh too. Last week, actor Prakash Raj visited the protest. Similarly, this week a group of people from various regions of Maharashtra, including Mumbai, Pune, and even Latur, have also pledged to travel all the way to Ladakh and join the protest.

According to the Free Press Journal, Dilip Jain, a Mumbai-based founder of the Djed Foundation, has initiated the Friends of Ladakh movement during Wangchuk’s fast. Speaking to the Free Press Journal, Dilip said that he will be among the Mumbaikars participating in the walk  for Ladakh’s rights, “I reached Ladakh on the early morning of Friday to join the march. We will walk to learn how much land has been taken over by the industries hampering the livelihood of the herders. The temperature is very extreme here and therefore we are expecting only around 40 to 50 people from outside Ladakh to join this walk.”

Bharat Solanki, the Jammu & Kashmir incharge of the All India Congress Committee took to X to speak out in support of the protests on what he termed the “ill behaviour of the insecure government”.

After curbing mobile data and imposing section 144 in the region, the administration at the behest of BJP is threatening the volunteers to not participate in the peaceful Pashmina March on April 7.
Do listen to @Wangchuk66 on ill behavior by the insecure government.#SaveLadakh pic.twitter.com/DS6DaMEwBg

— Bharat Solanki (@BharatSolankee) April 6, 2024

Related:

Agitation Likely To Intensify In Ladakh: KDA Calls For Half-Day Strike In Kargil Today

In The Himalayas, Living The Crisis That The IPCC Report Warns Of

March to border, relay fast on climate change and demands for Ladhakh to continue as climate activist Sonam Wangchuk ends hunger strike after 21 days

The post Section 144, internet suspension imposed ahead of Ladakh’s Pashmina March, march to continue appeared first on SabrangIndia.