Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA) and the manner in which the Supreme Court dealt with the petition filed by his wife, Gitanjali Angmo, leave several unanswered questions.
The order of detention was passed on September 26, 2025, alleging that Wangchuk was indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community.
While in normal circumstances, given the record of the court prior to 2014, the petition would have been dealt with forthwith, keeping aside all other matters, the manner in which the court dealt with this issue made me think that the cause of liberty is perhaps not as dear to the court as it should be. Such matters brook no delay and require immediate adjudication.
Upon detention, the detenu has certain procedural rights, entitling him to make representations to the state government and an advisory board. At the hearing before the advisory board, the detenu requested certain documents that had not been supplied to him within the statutory timeframe. He, thereafter, presented his case. The advisory board rendered its opinion on November 7, 2025 rejecting his petition for release, and the state government confirmed the order on November 11, 2025. All this happened while the detention was challenged in court.
The manner in which the proceedings were adjourned from time to time is evident from the fact that, after Wangchuk’s detention, a petition for his release was filed on October 2, 2025 and notice was issued on October 6. The progress thereafter was abysmally slow: October and early November were largely taken up with adjournments, procedural directions and amendments to the petition. By late November, pleadings were still underway, with the State seeking time to respond.
The matter then saw little movement through December and early January due to repeated non-listing or paucity of time. Substantive hearings only commenced from January 8, 2026 and proceeded intermittently with further adjournments sought by the State. Even after extensive arguments from both sides through January and February, the State repeatedly sought additional time in late February and early March. Ultimately, before the court could render a decision, the detention was revoked on March 14, 2026 and the petition was disposed of on March 23 without adjudication.
Human freedoms are precious. They need to be protected through a court system that cherishes such freedoms. Surely, there is a sense of immediacy that must be reflected in the orders of the court, even when the matter is adjourned. Delay in adjudication in a petition challenging detention under the NSA is anathema to the cause of liberty.
This is not the first time that the Supreme Court has dealt with preventive detention in a somewhat casual manner. After the abrogation of Article 370, Omar Abdullah, Farooq Abdullah and Mehbooba Mufti were detained under the Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act (PSA), 1978, again on unjustified grounds of disturbing public order and security. Unfortunately, even then, the court did not display any urgency, but gave the government time to respond. The State claimed that the sensitive security situation did not warrant their immediate release. The court sought a status report from the government. Omar’s detention continued for months without adjudication. Under the PSA, detention can be extended without trial for up to two years. Judicial scrutiny was deferred.
Article 21 is the heart and soul of the freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. They cannot be casually dealt with, and legal challenges must be swiftly remedied either way. A cautious, deferential approach that prioritises the State’s claims to security over concerns about liberty now appears to be part of our jurisprudence.
Similarly, Farooq Abdullah’s petition challenging his detention under the PSA was filed on September 16, 2019. The first substantive hearing in the matter was held on September 30, 2019. Subsequent hearings took place in October and November. Over time, the matter became infructuous. Eventually, Farooq Abdullah was released on March 13, 2020, and Omar Abdullah, on March 24, 2020, both through revocation orders passed by the appropriate government.
Some other jurisdictions give such matters top priority by requiring a quick resolution. Within 24 to 48 hours, the detenu’s presence is sought, and the matter is dealt with forthwith. Preventive detention is an assault on human freedoms and should not be dealt with in a manner that suggests that courts allow prolonged hearings delaying adjudication for months. Thereafter, withdrawal of the detention order renders such matters infructuous.
This is exactly what happened in the case of Sonam Wangchuk. The matter was fully argued. The detaining authority, represented by the law officers, opposed the challenge to the detention order with exceptional vehemence and filed a counter-affidavit in support of the detention. Despite the fact that arguments in rejoinder by counsel for the petitioner were over, yet another opportunity was sought by counsel of the detaining authority to clarify certain issues, a privilege granted, and unheard of in such matters. Eventually, before the clarification could be heard, the detention was revoked by an administrative order.
The further question that arises is whether, in such circumstances, the court should allow the matter to be rendered infructuous, especially when it has been fully argued. It is possible that the detaining authority’s counsel, sensing that the detention order may well be quashed, decided not to embarrass the detaining authority and withdrew the detention order, rendering the proceedings infructuous.
It is a matter for the court, especially in circumstances where the matter has been fully heard, not to allow a detention order to be rendered infructuous and to decide it one way or the other. Such a procedure results in a precedent that allows the State the privilege of not inviting a judgement. The counsel for the petitioner sought yet another date for submissions to be made for adjudication. That was not to be.
It is time for the court to introspect. It is time for it to send a signal that the cause of liberty is as close to its heart as it is to those who framed the Constitution.
Kapil Sibal | Senior lawyer and member of Rajya Sabha
(Views are personal)
(Tweets @KapilSibal)
