Mon Jan 12 17:09:53 UTC 2026: ### Headline: Sonam Wangchuk Challenges Legality of Detention Under National Security Act in Supreme Court

The Story

Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk challenged his detention under the National Security Act (NSA) in the Supreme Court on January 12, 2026, arguing that the detention order was based on “far-removed and unconnected events,” misrepresentations, and a “mechanical application of mind” by authorities. Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, following protests for statehood to Ladakh that turned violent. His counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that the detention order was a mere “copy-paste” of the request by authorities and questioned the legality of Section 5A of the NSA, which allows for the severability of detention grounds, even if some are found to be invalid.

Key Points

  • Sonam Wangchuk was detained on September 26, 2025, following violent protests in Ladakh.
  • Kapil Sibal, representing Wangchuk, argued that the detention order was based on vague aspersions and a “copy-paste” of the authority’s request.
  • Sibal questioned the legality of Section 5A of the National Security Act (1980), which allows detention even if some grounds are invalid.
  • Sibal argued that Section 5A affects the detainee’s constitutional right to an effective legal representation under Article 22(5).
  • The detention proposal cited events dating back to March 2024 and May 2024.
  • Wangchuk was shifted to the Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan.

Key Takeaways

  • The case raises concerns about the application of the National Security Act and its potential impact on constitutional rights.
  • The Supreme Court is scrutinizing the process by which detention orders are issued, particularly the requirement for independent application of mind by the detaining authority.
  • The challenge to Section 5A of the NSA could have broader implications for the interpretation and application of the act.

Impact Analysis

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case could significantly impact the use of the National Security Act. If the court finds Section 5A unconstitutional or interprets it narrowly, it could limit the government’s ability to detain individuals based on potentially flimsy or outdated evidence. This could lead to greater scrutiny of detention orders and potentially fewer detentions under the NSA. The outcome will also set a precedent for how constitutional rights are balanced against national security concerns in future cases.

Read More