DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
Add Tribune As Your Trusted Source
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

SC to hear wife's plea challenging Sonam Wangchuk's detention on December 8

The activist was detained on September 26 under NSA

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
Sonam Wangchuk. FILE
Advertisement
The Supreme Court will on Monday hear a petition filed by Sonam Wangchuk's wife challenging the climate activist's detention under the stringent National Security Act, 1980 as illegal and an arbitrary exercise violating his Fundamental Rights.
Advertisement

A Bench led by Justice Aravind Kumar is likely to take up the matter tomorrow.

Advertisement

On November 24, the top court had deferred the matter after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre and the UT of Ladakh, sought time to respond to the rejoinder filed by Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo.

Advertisement

The top court had on October 29 asked the Centre and the Ladakh Administration to respond to an amended petition of Angmo.

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

Advertisement

Angmo has challenged Wangchuk’s detention, terming it “illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional”, saying the detention order violated 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.

According to Angmo’s amended plea, “The detention order is founded upon stale FIRs, vague imputations and speculative assertions, lacks any live or proximate connection to the purported grounds of detention and is thus devoid of any legal or factual justification... Such arbitrary exercise of preventive powers amounts to a gross abuse of authority, striking at the core of constitutional liberties and due process, rendering the detention order liable to be vitiated by this court.”

Read what others don’t see with The Tribune Premium

  • Thought-provoking Opinions
  • Expert Analysis
  • Ad-free on web and app
  • In-depth Insights
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts