|
The Supreme Court on Thursday scheduled the final hearing in the plea filed by Gitanjali J Angmos, wife of Ladakh-based climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging her husband's detention under the National Security Act (NSA), for March 10.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale also clarified that the Court will not grant any more time to parties for any further arguments on the matter. "If we have any doubt (on the case), only that we will ask. That day we are closing it. We will not allow anything (beyond clearing doubts). Come what may, close it", the Court stated. Earlier, on February 11, the Supreme Court had questioned whether Wangchuk's speeches and social media posts could legitimately be treated as provocative material leading to the Leh violence on September 24, 2025. 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. (ANI)
|
