Ladakh Violence: Wangchuk’s Wife Moves SC, Seeks His Immediate Release

Supreme Court of India

Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of Ladakhi climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, has petitioned the Supreme Court for his immediate release from Jodhpur jail, where he has been held under the National Security Act since September 26.

Her move follows the September 24 violence in Leh, when demonstrations demanding Ladakh’s statehood and inclusion in the 6th Schedule turned deadly, leaving four people dead and several others injured. Wangchuk was detained two days later in connection with the unrest.

Angmo took to social media this morning to highlight her concerns over her husband’s condition.

“I have sought relief from the SUPREME COURT OF INDIA through a HABEAS CORPUS petition against @Wangchuk66’s detention. It is one week today. Still I have no information about Sonam Wangchuk’s health, the condition he is in nor the grounds of detention,” she wrote on X.

As the CEO of the Himalayan Institute of Alternatives, Angmo said she had received no official communication from authorities on Wangchuk’s health or the reasons for his arrest, despite the seriousness of the charges.

Letter To The President

Before moving the top court, Angmo had appealed directly to President Droupadi Murmu, describing the case against Wangchuk as a “witch-hunt” targeting his activism over the past 4 years.

The following day, she accused the Union government of “misusing” local police forces to intimidate Ladakhis after the violence. In a strongly worded post, she compared the situation to colonial-era oppression:
“Is India really free? In 1857, 24,000 Britishers used 135,000 Indian sepoys to oppress 300 million Indians under orders from the Queen. Today, a dozen administrators are misusing 2,400 Ladakhi police to oppress and torture 3 lakh Ladakhis under orders of the MHA.”

Court To Hear The Case

The habeas corpus plea is expected to come up for hearing next week. The Court will likely examine whether Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA is legally justified and whether constitutional protections have been upheld in the process.