Detaining authority didn’t apply mind: Sonam Wangchuk’s wife to Supreme Court

Sonam Wangchuk's wife and activist Gitanjali Angmo. (Source: File)

LADAKH ACTIVIST Wagchuk’s wife Gitanjali Angmo Monday contended that the District Magistrate, who issued the September 26, 2025 order for his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), had not applied his mind while doing so but had only “copy-pasted” recommendations made by the Ladakh SSP.

“According to us, and this is our averment in the petition, these grounds are a copy paste of the recommendations. No difference in language, nothing. The exact sentence, everything is the same,” Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale, adding the detention order “was passed in a mechanical way”.

Justice Kumar asked, “What is the basis on which you say that the grounds for detention in the order is cut, copy paste of the recommendations of the SSP?”

Sibal said he is presuming so as the complete text of the recommendations of the SSP on which the detention order was issued was not furnished to the petitioner. “Otherwise they would have given it to us.”

“Why do we say what we are saying? There is a document of 26 September, 2025 from SSP to District Magistrate. We have been given only the first page. We received it on December 7. Only the first page…That is word for word (of the detention order)…That’s why we are assuming it to be copy paste. That is the foundation of the submission, rest is the presumption.”

Sibal answered in the affirmative as Justice Kumar asked, “So you are contending that by virtue of that recommendation which is cut, copy, paste, having been incorporated in the detention order, there has been no application of mind by the detaining authority?”

On the last date of hearing on January 8, Sibal had said that the detention order was vitiated as the videos based on which it came to be issued were not supplied to the petitioner. He argued that it is well settled that if the grounds of detention are supplied but the documents relied upon in the grounds are not supplied, it will be against Article 22 of the constitution.

On Monday, Sibal said the detaining authority is citing Section 5A of the NSA to contend that Article 22 is subservient to the provision. Section 5A says that where a detention order is made on two or more grounds, such order of detention shall be deemed to have been made separately on each of such grounds and accordingly, it shall not be deemed to be invalid or inoperative merely because one or some of the grounds is or are vague, non-existent, not relevant, not connected or not proximately connected with such person, or invalid for any other reason whatsoever.

He said, “In normal circumstances, I would challenge this as unconstitutional because how can the statute get into the mind of the detaining authority?… What is it (Section 5A) saying?…(that) if there are 5 grounds and one of them is irrelevant, it is deemed that detention was made on the other grounds?”

When Justice Kumar asked what is the legal proposition here, Sibal replied: “That Section 5A does not apply. It can’t be attracted on grounds of effective representation which is a constitutional right. My constitutional right can’t be trampled by virtue of Section 5A. If four videos are discarded, it doesn’t matter- how can the statute say that?”

The hearing will continue Tuesday.