On Monday, 2 February 2026, the Supreme Court of India conducted a high-stakes hearing on the detention of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA).
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre, presented a series of alarming allegations, claiming Wangchuk had incited “Generation Z” toward a “bloodbath” similar to the civil unrest seen in Nepal and Bangladesh.
The government argued that Wangchuk’s rhetoric, specifically his references to the “Arab Spring” and his warnings that Ladakhis might not support the Indian Army in a war, posed a severe threat to the sensitive border region shared with China and Pakistan.
Wangchuk’s counsel, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, countered that the activist’s words were allegorical warnings about government inaction and that the detention was based on “selective extracts” of his speeches. The bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale, has scheduled the hearing to continue on February 3.
Allegations of Civil War
The Centre’s arguments focused on the unique geographical and strategic sensitivity of Ladakh as a frontier region. Solicitor General Mehta contended that Wangchuk’s speeches were not mere environmental advocacy but a deliberate attempt to define an “us versus them” narrative, which he argued is non-existent in the Indian identity.
The government alleged that Wangchuk misled the youth by suggesting that if he were jailed, Ladakh would mirror the violent political upheavals of Sri Lanka and Bangladesh.
Most critically, the Centre claimed Wangchuk tried to undermine national security by stating that the Indian Army is “weak” due to its reliance on specific regiments and that the local population might withdraw their support, potentially halting essential supply chains to the border forces.
“Borrowing” Discontent
The legal battle also delved into the procedural validity of the NSA invocation, with Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal challenging the “borrowed material” used by the District Magistrate to justify the detention.
Sibal argued that the detention order relied on stale police reports and selective video clips that omitted the activist’s consistent calls for Gandhian non-violence.
He further dismissed the government’s claims that Wangchuk made derogatory remarks about Hindu deities, describing such allegations as a “distortion” of the truth.
During the proceedings, the Solicitor General even questioned why a Ladakhi activist was commenting on the Sikh regiment or Punjab, suggesting a broader agenda beyond the demand for Ladakh’s Sixth Schedule status.
The Logical Indian’s Perspective
At The Logical Indian, we believe that the strength of a democracy lies in its ability to withstand criticism without resorting to the harshest measures of the law.
While national security in border regions is an undeniable priority, the use of the National Security Act against an environmentalist raises troubling questions about the narrowing space for regional advocacy.
We urge for a judicial process that carefully distinguishes between inflammatory incitement and the passionate, even provocative, language of a leader fighting for his people’s constitutional rights.
Peace and harmony in Ladakh can only be sustained through a transparent dialogue that addresses local grievances, rather than the prolonged incarceration of its most prominent voices.
