Cannot release Sonam Wangchuk on health grounds, Centre tells Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 11, 2026) pointed to phrases in statements made by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk expressing his anxiety about departing from the Gandhian non-violent mode of struggle even as the Centre strongly objected to the court associating a person “completely anti-India” with the father of the nation, saying they are “chalk and cheese”.

The exchange came after the Centre voiced disagreement with the court’s proposal to reconsider Mr. Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA) on medical grounds.

Appearing before a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj said the “health facade was manufactured and synthetic”.

Mr. Nataraj said the activist, detained in the Jodhpur Central Jail, was “fit, hale and hearty” and had been medically examined 24 times already over the past five months of his confinement.

Mr. Wangchuk was detained under the NSA on September 26 last year, two days after violent protests demanding Statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the union territory.

During the hearing, the Bench pointed to specific phrases in Mr. Wangchuk’s public statements expressing his worry about departing from the Gandhian way.

Mr. Nataraj said the aftermath of the violence had left four dead, 161 injured and the entire area scarred.

The Bench, referring to the Centre citing Mr. Wangchuk’s alleged references to Arab Spring as a reason leading to incitement of violence, said “everybody knows about Arab Spring. He has not disclosed it for the first time”.

“How do you link all this to what happened on September 24 [violence]? Are you saying people sitting with him on hunger strike heard him, got up and left to commit violence?” Justice Kumar asked.

Mr. Nataraj said if he [Wangchuk] wants to fast, “let him fast at home”.

Mr. Mehta urged the court to not “glorify someone who is completely anti-India with the father of the nation”, as there was clear distinction between the two personalities. He said the court must look into the consequences of the statements made by the activist and “read between the lines” of Mr. Wangchuk’s statements. He pressed the court to consider the fact that Mr. Wangchuk had made these remarks in a region which was sensitive and on the border with China.