Detention revoked, questions unanswered

The Sonam Wangchuk case exposes gaps in procedural accountability and threats to civil liberties.

Sonam Wangchuk’s unconditional release, after six months of preventive detention, raises questions about the validity of his detention and the limited application of citizens’ rights in this case.

The climate activist was detained in September 2025 for leading protests demanding statehood for Ladakh and constitutional safeguards for the region’s fragile ecology and the rights of its indigenous population. 

He has been released, ostensibly to “restore” peace and conditions for dialogue. Wangchuk was held under the draconian National Security Act (NSA) on charges of leading an “anti-national” agitation, alleged Pakistani links, suspicious foreign visits, and “financial irregularities”. 

These charges have now disappeared without explanation. That they were framed against a noted activist leading a peaceful agitation places similar charges raised against others under the scanner.

Wangchuk was released three days before the Supreme Court was to resume hearing on a habeas corpus petition filed by his wife. This raises the question of whether the administration acted to avoid releasing him after a court order.

The Court, while examining the fairness of the detention procedures and the translations of Wangchuk’s speeches to verify their “provocative” nature, had raised questions regarding the arrest. It also said the government may have read too much into his speeches.

Considering the Court’s observations and the seemingly arbitrary nature of the detention and release, the case appeared to be on weak ground. At the centre of the issue is a disturbing absence of procedural accountability that allows a person to be detained for six months and released without a credible explanation for the change in position.

This sends out a worrying signal to the citizen; this reveals the ease with which arrests and releases can be made, without the court or the accused being allowed an opportunity to conclusively test the veracity of the charges. It is also worth noting that prolonged proceedings in the Court deferred justice in a case that involved a citizen’s right to life and liberty.

Wangchuk’s release does not mark the end of the case or render the underlying issues irrelevant. Though the petition is technically infructuous now, the case is yet to be decided.

The Court has previously held that release does not automatically end a case of illegal detention and has ordered compensation to the detainees. It should define Wangchuk’s detention in clear judicial terms.

The Court’s position in this case should ensure safeguards against unlawful detention and deter governments from initiating processes that cannot stand legal scrutiny.