SC questions Centre over non-disclosure of detention grounds to Sonam Wangchuk’s wife

Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Centre over its failure to inform climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, of the reasons behind his detention under the National Security Act (NSA).

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria issued notices to the Union government, Jammu & Kashmir, and Rajasthan, after Angmo filed a habeas corpus petition under Article 32.

She argued that the authorities had neither explained the basis for detaining her husband nor allowed her to meet him since they took him into custody on September 26.

The court will hear the matter on October 14.

Authorities detained Wangchuk two days after violent clashes erupted in Ladakh during protests demanding statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule; he is currently lodged in Jodhpur jail.

The unrest left four people dead and injured over 90.

Angmo challenged the detention as unconstitutional under Article 22, stating that the authorities had failed to provide a copy of the detention order, making it impossible to prepare a legal challenge.

Representing Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told the court that neither Wangchuk nor his family had received the grounds for his detention, which prevented them from filing a proper representation before the Advisory Board.

Sibal argued, "You cannot challenge the detention unless you have access to the grounds," and also requested that authorities allow Angmo to meet her husband, as they had denied her access since his arrest.

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, maintained that officials had already served Wangchuk the detention order and had allowed his brother to meet him.

He insisted that the law only required serving the detenue, not the family members.

“There’s no legal obligation to share the grounds with the wife,” Mehta said, accusing the petitioner of creating a new ground of challenge by raising the issue of non-disclosure.

The bench questioned why authorities withheld the detention order from Wangchuk’s wife.

The bench asked, "As per this court’s earlier judgments, authorities must share the grounds with family members. Why did they not inform the wife?" It instructed the Centre to ensure that authorities serve the notice to Angmo.

In response, Mehta accused the petitioner of stirring ‘false hype’ in the media and the region by suggesting that authorities were depriving Wangchuk of medical care and access to his family.

He claimed that nobody had denied her the right to meet him and that they were building this narrative just to create an emotive atmosphere, noting that authorities had already allowed 12 individuals to meet Wangchuk.

Acknowledging that authorities had detained Wangchuk without his belongings and that he had been fasting prior to his arrest, the court ordered the authorities to ensure they provide him with necessary medicines, clothes, and medical care.

When the court asked Angmo when she had attempted to visit her husband, she replied that she had traveled to Jodhpur last week and had been persistently requesting a meeting, but had received no access.

As the hearing progressed, the bench cautioned both sides to avoid emotional arguments. It also asked Sibal why the petitioner had not approached a High Court.

Sibal explained that the Centre had issued the detention order, raising questions about jurisdiction.

Concluding the session, the court said it would not comment further at this stage and scheduled the next hearing for October 14.