Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
TrendingVideosIndia
Opinions | CommentEditorialsThe MiddleLetters to the EditorReflections
UPSC | Exam ScheduleExam Mentor
State | Himachal PradeshPunjabJammu & KashmirHaryanaChhattisgarhMadhya PradeshRajasthanUttarakhandUttar Pradesh
City | ChandigarhAmritsarJalandharLudhianaDelhiPatialaBathindaShaharnama
World | ChinaUnited StatesPakistan
Diaspora
Features | The Tribune ScienceTime CapsuleSpectrumIn-DepthTravelFood
Business | My Money
News Columns | Straight DriveCanada CallingLondon LetterKashmir AngleJammu JournalInside the CapitalHimachal CallingHill ViewBenchmark
Don't Miss
Advertisement

SC to hear plea on Wangchuk’s detention today

New Delhi: Gitanjali J Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, during a press conference, at the Press Club of India, in New Delhi, Tuesday, Sept. 30, 2025. (PTI Photo/Atul Kumar)(PTI09_30_2025_000159A)

Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium

Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only Benefits
Yearly Premium ₹999 ₹349/Year
Yearly Premium $49 $24.99/Year
Advertisement

The Supreme Court on Monday will hear a petition filed by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, which terms his detention under the stringent National Security Act (NSA), 1980, as illegal and an arbitrary exercise violating his fundamental rights.

Advertisement

On October 29, the top court had asked the Centre and the Ladakh Administration to respond to the amended plea filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo.

Advertisement

The matter has been listed for hearing on November 24 before a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria.

Wangchuk was detained on September 26 under Section 3(2) of the NSA, two days after protests demanding Ladakh’s statehood and Sixth Schedule status turned violent, leaving four persons dead and nearly 100 injured. He is currently lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail.

Angmo has challenged his detention, calling it “illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional”, saying the order violates her husband’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (right to various freedoms), 21 (right to life and liberty) and 22 (protection against arrest and detention in certain cases) of the Constitution.

Advertisement

Advertisement
Show comments
Advertisement