The Union Government on Wednesday (October 15) informed the Supreme Court that it had no objection to Ladakh-based environmentalist and social activist Sonam Wangchuk sharing the notes he has prepared regarding his detention under the National Security Act (NSA) with his wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo.

Taking note of the submission, a Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria adjourned the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr. Angmo till October 29, after her counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, sought permission to amend the petition to include additional grounds and reliefs.

The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, challenges the legality of Wangchuk’s detention, claiming violation of Article 22 as neither Wangchuk nor his family was provided with the grounds of arrest. Wangchuk is reportedly detained at Jodhpur Central Jail. The respondents in the case include the Union Government, Ladakh Administration, and the Superintendent of Jodhpur Central Jail.

During the hearing, Kapil Sibal submitted that Wangchuk was not being allowed to share his handwritten notes — prepared to challenge the detention — with his wife, who is pursuing the legal remedy on his behalf.

“He has made certain notes on the detention which he wanted to pass to the lawyer through his wife. Whatever notes he prepares, he is entitled to legal assistance. All we ask is that those notes be passed,” Sibal argued.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, stated that the government had no objection to the notes being shared with Wangchuk’s wife. However, he cautioned that this should not later be used as a ground to challenge the legality of the detention on account of any delay in making a representation.

“My only caveat is that the delay of two days in making a representation should not become a ground for challenge. Normally, the detainee himself makes the representation. If others wish to know the grounds, we have no difficulty,” the SG said.

He added that Wangchuk had also requested a laptop to prepare his notes on the grounds of detention.

Responding to this, Sibal clarified that the petition challenges the detention only on the grounds already served by the Union, and that the request to amend the plea would be made formally through an interlocutory application, which the Court permitted.

Recording the submissions, the Bench observed in its order:

“Kapil Sibal, learned senior counsel, would submit that the detainee has prepared certain notes and the same are required to be shared with the petitioner (wife), and she prays for suitable directions.

Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, would submit that they have no objection to the detainee sharing notes with his wife. However, any possible ground that may be urged in this regard is to be struck off.

At this stage, we are not expressing any opinion in this regard and keeping it open for consideration. Placing the submissions of the learned Solicitor General on record, we direct the matter to be relisted on October 29.”

Justice Kumar clarified that the Court was not expressing any view on the Union’s caveat at this stage.

At the previous hearing, the Supreme Court had issued notice to the respondents. Kapil Sibal had then argued that neither Wangchuk nor his wife had received the detention grounds, while SG Mehta maintained that there was no legal requirement to supply them to the spouse. Sibal had clarified that he was not relying on that as a separate ground of challenge but only sought access to effectively contest the detention.

When Justice Kumar asked why the petitioner had not approached the High Court, Sibal replied that since the detention order was issued by the Central Government, it was unclear which High Court had territorial jurisdiction. The Bench directed him to clarify this point during the next hearing.

Ahead of Wednesday’s hearing, the Leh District Magistrate filed an affidavit denying the allegation of illegal detention and asserting that the grounds of detention had been served within the statutory time limit. The Jodhpur Central Jail Superintendent also submitted that Wangchuk’s wife, brother, and lawyers were allowed to meet him in custody.

The affidavit further stated that Wangchuk has not yet made any representation against his detention and that all procedural safeguards under the NSA had been complied with.

Case Title: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India & Others

W.P. (Crl.) No. 399/2025