Listen to this article:

On Saturday (March 14), the Union government revoked climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act, 1980. The step came three days before the Supreme Court was scheduled to resume hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by his wife, Gitanjali J. Angmo, in W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025.

The Court had issued notice on 6 October 2025, and the matter remained part-heard across several listings before being posted again for March 17, 2026. The government’s press release says Wangchuk had been detained on September 26, 2025 after the September 24, law and order situation in Leh, and that the revocation was intended to restore peace and create conditions for dialogue in Ladakh.

The first question is obvious: does the timing, by itself, prove that the government acted to make the Supreme Court proceedings infructuous? A careful answer has to be more restrained than the political one. Timing can generate a reasonable inference; it does not, by itself, establish motive. The State did possess a clear statutory power to revoke the detention. Section 14 of the NSA permits revocation or modification “at any time,” and the press release places the decision within a political narrative of de-escalation, community dialogue and a return to normalcy. 

Revocation answers one question immediately: whether Wangchuk should remain in preventive custody. It does not answer the prior question that brought the case to the Supreme Court: whether the original detention was lawful when made and lawfully continued while it lasted. The statute itself shows why the distinction matters.

Section 13 fixes a maximum detention period of 12 months after confirmation; Section 14 allows revocation at an earlier stage; and Section 14(2)........

© The Wire