The Union Government on Monday (December 8) opposed a request made on behalf of Ladakhi activist Sonam Wangchuk to appear before the Supreme Court through video conferencing from Jodhpur Central Jail, where he is currently detained under the National Security Act (NSA).
Wangchuk’s wife, Dr. Gitanjali Angmo, has filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32 questioning the legality of his preventive detention following the Ladakh statehood protests, which allegedly turned violent in September.
The matter was listed before a bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria, but the hearing could not proceed as both sides’ counsel were already arguing in another court.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Dr. Angmo, urged the Court to pass a direction enabling Wangchuk to join through video link.
He submitted:
“Sonam was to be connected via video from jail; your Lordships may pass an order facilitating that.”
However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union, strongly opposed the request.
He argued that granting such a facility could set a widespread precedent:
“If we allow this, every convict across the country will demand the same treatment. Wherever there is livestreaming, the accused or convict will ask to be connected via VC.”
Background of the Case
The Union of India, the Ladakh Administration, and the Superintendent of Jodhpur Central Jail have been arrayed as respondents in the petition.
On October 6, the Supreme Court issued notice in the matter. Sibal had then complained that the detention order and grounds had not been furnished to the family. SG Mehta countered that there is no legal mandate to supply detention grounds to the spouse. Sibal clarified that he was not relying on that point as a ground for illegality, but only sought access to challenge the detention effectively.
Affidavits were filed defending the detention:
• The Leh District Magistrate asserted that the detention is lawful, that the grounds were served on Wangchuk within the statutory timeframe, and that he has not yet made a representation against the action.
• The Jail Superintendent confirmed that his wife, brother, and lawyers have been permitted to meet him.
In additional submissions, Dr. Angmo contended that the detention is based on irrelevant and outdated FIRs, suppressed material, and unsupported reasoning. She further alleges that the detention order was incomplete and provided three days late, after his arrest on September 29.
On October 15, the Court permitted Dr. Angmo to obtain access to Wangchuk’s handwritten notes prepared for his legal defense, which were supplied a day later.
Case Title: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India & Others
W.P. (Crl.) No. 399/2025
Filed through AoR Dr. Sarvam Ritam Khare
