ON WEDNESDAY, THE WIFE OF SONAM WANGCHUK was provided with a copy of her husband’s detention order under the National Security Act (‘NSA’) of 1980. Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, shared this information in a post on X.
This development followed a hearing in the Supreme Court on a habeas corpus petition filed by Angmo against her husband’s detention.
During the hearing held on October 6, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, submitted that the grounds of detention should be provided to the petitioner. However, the Solicitor General argued that the grounds had already been shared with the detenue, Wangchuk. Sibal countered that it would be impossible for the wife to challenge the detention without access to the grounds.
The Supreme Court recorded in its order: “The learned Solicitor General submits that they will examine the feasibility of serving a copy of the detention order to the wife of the detenue, a copy of which has already been served on the detenue.”
Earlier, speaking to the media, Angmo said that when Wangchuk’s brother visited him at Jodhpur Jail, he could only see him through a glass partition. Thus, she said, it would not have been possible for Wangchuk to pass the grounds of detention to his brother, even if he had received them.
Detention under NSA and grounds of detention
Detaining a person under preventive detention laws is an exception to the usual process of taking a person into custody under the relevant law for an alleged crime.
Article 22(1) of the Constitution provides that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as practicable, of the grounds for such arrest.
Article 22(5) of the Constitution states: “When any person is detained pursuant to an order made under any law providing for preventive detention, the authority making the order shall, as soon as practicable, communicate to such person the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order.” This article pertains to preventive detention.
This requirement is also incorporated in Section 8 of the NSA, which states that when a person is detained pursuant to a detention order, the authority making the order shall, as soon as practicable, but ordinarily not later than five days, and in exceptional circumstances, for reasons recorded in writing, not later than fifteen days from the date of detention, communicate to him the grounds on which the order has been made and shall afford him the earliest opportunity of making a representation against the order to the appropriate government.
Although the word used in Section 8 is “him,” referring to the detenue, it should not be construed literally and strictly, lest it render the right to access justice illusory.
Supreme Court rulings
In Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi) (2024), the Supreme Court, while commenting on Article 22, observed that the language used in Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) regarding the communication of the grounds is identical. The Court noted that the interpretation of the scope of Article 22(5) would also apply to Article 22(1) concerning the requirement to communicate the grounds of arrest.
The Prabir Purkayastha case was not a case of preventive detention but a challenge to an arrest under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Court further held that non-compliance with this constitutional requirement and statutory mandate would render the custody or detention illegal.
Earlier this year, Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, in his concurring opinion in Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana (2025), held that the purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest to the detenue and, additionally, to his relatives is not merely a formality. It enables the detained person to know the reasons for his arrest and provides the necessary opportunity, through his relatives, friends, or nominated persons, to secure his release at the earliest possible opportunity, thereby actualising the fundamental right to liberty and life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.
This was also a case of arrest, not preventive detention. Justice Kotiswar Singh’s concurring opinion found support in Section 50A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which makes it obligatory for the person making an arrest to inform the friends, relatives, or persons nominated by the arrested person about the arrest. This, Justice Singh observed, ensures they can take immediate and prompt action to secure the release of the arrested person as permissible under the law.
The purpose of communicating the grounds of arrest or detention, as the case may be, is to ensure that the person concerned knows the reasons for his arrest or detention and can effectively access the justice delivery system to secure his release, in furtherance of Article 21 of the Constitution.
In Wangchuk’s case, his wife stated before the Court that she had no access to the grounds of detention. She pointed out that when Sonam Wangchuk’s brother visited him at Jodhpur Jail, he could only see him through a glass partition. Therefore, she said, it would not have been possible for Wangchuk to hand over the grounds of detention to his brother, even if he had received them. If this was the case, it clearly constituted a denial of access to justice, rendering his right to legal remedies against his detention illusory.
Justice Singh, in the judgment referred to above, succinctly held that an arrested person, because of his detention, cannot have immediate and easy access to the legal process for securing his release, which would otherwise be available to friends, relatives, or nominated persons by engaging lawyers and briefing them to secure the detained person’s release on bail at the earliest opportunity.
There is no good reason why this reasoning should not apply to detention under preventive detention laws. After all, the right to legal remedies is not restricted solely to arrests made under Article 22(1) of the Constitution. It applies with equal force in cases of preventive detention, where scrutiny by the courts is expected to be even more rigorous because preventive detention is an exception to the general mode of taking a person into custody under the relevant law.
Background
Last month, the administration of the Union Territory of Ladakh placed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk in preventive detention under the NSA. Reportedly, the detention order was issued on September 26, 2025.
Wangchuk had been on a hunger strike since September 10, 2025, demanding Sixth Schedule status and statehood for Ladakh.
On September 24 2025, at around 11:30 a.m., a mob became violent, attacked security personnel, and set a police vehicle on fire. The unruly mob injured more than 30 police and CRPF personnel and continued to destroy public property and assault the police.
In a statement issued on the same day, the Ministry of Home Affairs blamed Wangchuk for making provocative speeches that incited the mob.
Gitanjali J. Angmo, Wangchuk’s wife, has approached the Supreme Court to challenge her husband’s detention under the NSA. The Supreme Court heard her habeas corpus petition on Monday, issuing a notice to the government and listing the matter for a hearing on 14 October 2025.