"You are reading too much into it": SC to Centre on Sonam Wangchuk's speeches

While hearing submissions by the Central government and the Leh administration defending Wangchuk's preventive detention under the National Security Act (NSA), a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale examined the speeches relied upon by the detaining authorities and raised questions on the interpretation being placed on them, particularly where Wangchuk appears to be expressing concern over youth losing faith in peaceful "Gandhian" methods of protest and the fear of a violent outbreak in the demand for Statehood.

When Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, submitted that Wangchuk was the chief provocateur behind the violent protests and had instigated the youth by warning that a Nepal-like situation could arise in India, the Court questioned this reading and remarked that Wangchuk appeared to be expressing concern and surprise over the situation.

"Where does he say that? He is saying they (the youth) have taken it. He himself is surprised," the Court asked.

Nataraj responded that such an inference could be drawn from the speech itself. He then referred to another portion in which Wangchuk allegedly stated that the deployment of armed forces in Ladakh was unfortunate.

"He says youth say peaceful methods have not proved effective," Nataraj submitted. "This is a hybrid expression," he added.

The Court responded that in these speeches, Wangchuk appears to be expressing worry about violence and questioned the interpretation being placed by the Centre that he's instigating it.

"He (Wangchuk) is saying it's worrying. He's expressing that this is not something which would be welcome. If someone says violent -- is the expression, 'I'm worried'. Some people are abandoning the peaceful way and are willing to take violent methods; this is worrying. We are following the Gandhian way. If someone is taking a departure from that way (non-violent Gandhian method) - departure from that is worrying," the Court said.

"You are too much into it," Justice Aravind Kumar added.

Nataraj then submitted that in preventive detention matters, even suspicion was sufficient. He stated that Wangchuk was fasting in a public place, and the aftermath had to be viewed together.

"Fasting can't be done in a private place," the Court retorted.

Nataraj further stated that Wangchuk was instigating similar agitations that could occur in Ladakh and submitted that even a single material fact was sufficient to sustain a detention order.

He then pointed to additional material, including an interview given to Ladakh Express, where Wangchuk allegedly said that youth felt peace and Mahatma Gandhi's way was not effective.

"Many such paragraphs are available as independent grounds," Nataraj said.

The Court then read transcripts of Wangchuk's speeches, including references to Mahatma Gandhi's last speech, before his assassination, where Gandhi spoke of deliverance to his death for the sake of the nation.

Nataraj, however, argued that one part of the sentence shouldn't be read in way that expresses a positive approach, where his speeches in their entirety are provocative of instigating violence.

Nataraj submitted that Wangchuk, while referring to his foreign connections, warned of making the Ladakh issue an international issue. He said Wangchuk had called for a non-cooperation movement.

However, the Court asked how this part of the speech connected to the said incident on September 24 (based on which Wangchuk has been detained).

"That is not connected to 24/9/2025," the Court said.

Nataraj responded that he would demonstrate the connection and said each video clip would establish it.

"If it is linked, you point it out," the Court said.

Nataraj then referred to a tweet where Wangchuk cited a media report and spoke of dedication, including a reference to self-immolation by Ladakhis.

"Is it not provocation to the public to make an immolation?" Nataraj asked.

"This was 8/6/2025 -- not 24/9/2025," the Court pointed out.

When the Court asked where it was uploaded, Nataraj stated that it was uploaded to Wangchuk's own YouTube channel.

Nataraj then referred to another tweet in which, in an interview with a media channel, Wangchuk allegedly promoted subversive and dangerous views, including the proposition that regions in India should be free to choose their own future through referendums or plebiscites. He submitted that Wangchuk made references to this in his speeches.

He also pointed to another tweet dated June 8, 2025, where Wangchuk spoke of sacrificing his life through an indefinite hunger strike or immolation to gain publicity and of going to the UN headquarters to raise the Ladakh issue.

"If it's a domestic issue which can be dealt with within the four walls of the constitutional system, he could've gone to our courts," Nataraj submitted.

He further argued that in Wangchuk's speech, he also referred to the Indian army's Sikh regiments being affected by protests in their areas and questioned whether such conduct was expected of a citizen. He submitted that Wangchuk repeatedly said the people of Ladakh would not want to help the Indian Army during wartime.

Nataraj also referred to Wangchuk's statements on atrocities faced by Tibetan people at the hands of China and other atrocities occurring in Pakistan, and said he warned Ladakhis would face similar treatment. He emphasised that these statements were made in a sensitive border area and were likely to be repeated.

He said the issue was serious and that Wangchuk was misleading the public regarding Statehood and the alleged takeover of Ladakh by outsiders. He submitted that the detaining authority had independently considered each ground.

At this stage, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta intervened and urged the Court not to misinterpret any part of Wangchuk's speeches and compare it with that of Gandhi's. The SG said there is a stark difference between the two.

"Chalk and cheese," Mehta said, adding, "Let's not."

The Court clarified that it was only referring to the portion of Wangchuk's speech where he had referred to Gandhi saying - My death will be for the sake of the nation.

Mehta then urged the Court not to compare the two, as it should not appear in tomorrow's headlines that the Supreme Court had compared Wangchuk with Gandhi. He also submitted that the health issue was merely a facade for social media.

The Court responded that it was not concerned with what might happen elsewhere.

"We are not going into what may happen elsewhere. Why are you making an ant out of a molehill? Why are you doing it?" the Court asked Mehta. "If you say don't ask any questions, we won't ask any questions", it added.

Continuing his submissions, ASG Nataraj then submitted that the grounds of detention in such cases were severable, relying on earlier judgments, including a 1984 ruling. He said Wangchuk's provocative speeches had rendered the situation violent and that the preventive detention order had achieved its purpose.

It was further submitted that such preventive detention cases under the NSA are purely within the domain of the Central administration, and that courts should not interfere.

After hearing submissions today, the Court adjourned the matter to tomorrow, where the Centre may conclude the final limb of its arguments and the petitioner challenging Wangchuks' detention will begin its counter.

Before ASG Nataraj began his submissions today, SG Mehta informed the Supreme Court that the Centre cannot release Wangchuk on medical grounds. Responding to an earlier query by the Court, SG Tushar Mehta submitted that Wangchuk's health was being regularly monitored in custody.

The Solicitor General stated that Wangchuk had been medically examined approximately 24 times in accordance with the jail manual and that his condition did not warrant release. He stated that Wangchuk had suffered from a gastrointestinal infection but was otherwise fit. The Centre argued that making exceptions on health grounds would not be desirable and that the grounds for detention remained.

"He has been examined periodically. He is fit and hearty. If we start making such exceptions, it will not lead to something positive," Mehta told the Court, adding that the authorities had given "utmost consideration" to the Court's query. (ANI)