2 min readMar 17, 2026 06:05 AM IST
First published on: Mar 17, 2026 at 06:05 AM IST
The Centre’s decision to revoke the detention of climate activist and Magsaysay awardee Sonam Wangchuk on March 14, after almost six months, is welcome. He was detained on September 26, two days after a protest in Ladakh for separate statehood and inclusion within the Sixth Schedule claimed four lives. Wangchuk, an activist who has spoken of the Gandhian way and used non-violent methods, was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA). Section 3 empowers the government to detain a person “with a view to preventing him from acting in any manner prejudicial to the defence of India, the relations of India with foreign powers, or the security of India”. That the Centre’s revocation order comes only three days before the Supreme Court was scheduled to hear final arguments on a habeas corpus petition by Wangchuk’s wife raises sobering questions about its case against the activist, pointing to its own apprehensions about its inability to hold up in court.
By all accounts, the Centre’s use of this harsh law, which empowers it to detain a person without formal charge and trial, against Wangchuk, was a case of the state using its strong arm to curb political dissent. The NSA takes away the detained person’s constitutional right to be produced before a magistrate within 24 hours of detention. It doesn’t allow the individual to move a bail application. These provisions should be used, as the SC observed in Rekha vs. State of Tamil Nadu (2011), with “meticulous compliance with the procedural safeguards” to prevent the “misuse of this potentially dangerous power.” Wangchuk, who welcomed the BJP government’s abrogation of Article 370 that bifurcated J&K, giving Ladakh the status of a Union Territory without a legislative body, has been articulating the concerns that the Centre’s move revived in the Ladakhi people about their own future.
There is a lesson for the Centre in this episode. Its emphasis on “an environment of peace, stability and mutual trust in Ladakh” to “facilitate constructive and meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders” means little unless all views, especially differing and dissenting ones, are heard, instead of being shut down.
