The Union government informed the Supreme Court that the public speeches delivered by Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk were aimed at provoking the region’s youth and could potentially push Ladakh towards instability resembling the situations witnessed in countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka. The Centre argued that such rhetoric posed a serious threat to national security, especially given Ladakh’s strategic importance as a sensitive border region.
On Monday, the Centre strongly defended Wangchuk’s preventive detention before the apex court, maintaining that his speeches went beyond legitimate protest or dissent and amounted to incitement, separatist messaging, and conduct capable of disturbing public order. Representing the Union government, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that the activist’s public addresses were designed to influence and mobilise young people in a manner that could lead to large-scale unrest.
Mehta told the court that Wangchuk had attempted to draw parallels between Ladakh and countries such as Nepal, Bangladesh, and Sri Lanka, referring to episodes of political instability and violent uprisings in those nations. According to the Centre, this comparison was not incidental but deliberate, and it sought to encourage Ladakh’s youth to believe that similar disruptive movements were necessary or desirable in their own region.
The matter was heard by a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna Varale, which was considering a petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Geetanjali, challenging the legality of his detention.
At the very beginning of the hearing, the Bench clarified the limited scope of judicial review in such matters. It observed that while exercising jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution, the court does not function as an appellate authority over detention orders. Instead, the core issue before the court was whether the reasons, grounds, and material relied upon by the detaining authority had a clear and reasonable connection with concerns relating to national security.
The Solicitor General argued that the court’s task was not to substitute its own satisfaction for that of the executive authority. Rather, it was required to examine whether the District Magistrate had sufficient justification to arrive at the subjective satisfaction that Wangchuk’s actions and speeches were likely to disrupt public order and threaten national security.
Referring to the detention order, Mehta submitted that the District Magistrate had concluded that Wangchuk’s speeches carried the potential to incite harmful activities, mobilise crowds in an uncontrolled manner, and disturb peace in the region. He emphasised that the detention was ordered after following due procedure and was issued within a short span of four hours, indicating prompt administrative action based on available material.
Mehta further informed the court that prior to the detention, a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) of police had met Wangchuk and shown him video clips of his speeches. According to the Centre, Wangchuk acknowledged that the clips presented to him were genuine and accurately reflected what he had said in public.
Reading extracts from the speeches in court, the Solicitor General contended that Wangchuk had consciously mixed inflammatory statements with references to non-violence and Mahatma Gandhi, thereby attempting to create a protective cover for otherwise provocative remarks. He argued that such selective invocation of Gandhian principles could not neutralise the overall impact of the speech.
“The district magistrate is required to assess the speech as a whole,” Mehta submitted, adding that it was impermissible to isolate a single sentence or phrase and claim immunity by citing Gandhi. He remarked that the present generation, particularly Gen Z, interprets language and symbolism differently, and that such speeches could have far-reaching consequences among impressionable youth.
Mehta pointed out that Wangchuk had spoken about a sudden surge of young protesters appearing “like a flood,” stating that he himself did not know where they had come from. He allegedly went on to say that these young people were expecting a Nepal-like riot situation and could draw inspiration from developments in Nepal.
According to the Centre, such remarks amounted to misleading the youth into believing that replicating the trajectory followed by Nepal was a viable or desirable path for Ladakh. Mehta concluded by asserting that the repeated invocation of Mahatma Gandhi was merely a tactical device to shield a speech that was otherwise intended to provoke unrest and destabilise a sensitive region.
