New Delhi: The Centre has told the Supreme Court that climate activist Sonam Wangchuk is in seemingly good health, isn’t suffering from any chronic condition and has met his family and lawyers on different occasions since his detention. The top court Tuesday briefly took up the plea of Gitanjali J. Angmo, the wife of the climate activist who was taken into preventive detention last month under the stringent National Security Act, 1980.
Wangchuk is lodged in Jodhpur’s Central Jail on grounds of endangering national security and has also been given a laptop on his request, despite there being no provision for the same, the Centre told the top court.
The educationist was detained two days after the protest in Leh to demand statehood and Sixth Schedule protections for Ladakh took a violent turn. Wangchuk had been sitting on a hunger strike since 10 September to press for the demands.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria listed the matter for hearing on 14 October, due to the paucity of time, after it was passed over, on request by the petitioner’s side. Senior advocate Kapil Sibal was busy in another court at the time the matter was announced, which is why the case had been passed over for hearing at a later time, on the same day.
Before the two-judge bench, the Centre presented a two-part affidavit, with responses from authorities like the district magistrate of Leh, Ladakh, who passed the detention order for the activist’s arrest and the superintendent of the Jodhpur Central Jail, where Wangchuk is currently being held.
In a nutshell, these replies spoke of his seemingly good health, lack of medical ailments or the need for medication, besides elaborating the grounds for detaining him under the NSA, on 26 September, which had not been disclosed publicly previously. It also told the court that Wangchuk also met his family and lawyers on different occasions.
Wangchuk has been “indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State, maintenance of public order and services essential to the community and circumstances” prevailing within the local limits of the jurisdiction, the district magistrate had said in his detention order dated 26 September.
The order, which derived its authority from Section 3(2) of the NSA, also said that Wangchuk’s detention was necessary to prevent him from indulging in these activities in the future. The provision essentially allows the Centre or the state government to issue orders directing the arrest of any person with a view to prevent them from acting in any manner prejudicial to the security of the State, or to the maintenance of public order, or prejudicial to the maintenance of essential supplies and services to a community, if necessary, and if the authorities are satisfied.
Significantly, the order pointed out that Wangchuk was yet to make any representation or formal complaint to the Advisory Board, Centre and UT of Ladakh, against his detention order–something that he was allowed to do even after being detained.
Also Read: An ‘unbearably curious’ boy who became voice of Ladakh—a village recalls the story of Sonam Wangchuk
District magistrate’s version
On 14 October, the deputy commissioner and district magistrate of the Leh district, Ladakh, Romil Singh Donk, denied as “baseless” the allegations which suggested that the authorities detained Wangchuk illegally, and were treating him improperly during the course of the detention.
Saying that he was lawfully detained by way of the 26 September order, under Section 3(2) of the Act, and after his subjective satisfaction on the prevailing circumstances within their region, the DM also said Wangchuk had been indulging in activities prejudicial to the security of the State.
Underlining that he was categorically informed of the grounds of his detention under the NSA, and even of his transfer to Central Jail, Jodhpur, the affidavit said that even Wangchuk’s wife, Geetanjali was informed about his detention over the phone, following which she visited him in prison many times.
All arguments about Wangchuk or his family not being informed of the detention order under the NSA, 1980, are “completely false and misleading”, the reply said.
Article 22 of the Constitution which contains safeguards for protection from arbitrary arrest, and Section 8 of the 1980 Act, which outlines that grounds of arrest must be communicated to one who is being detained within 5 to 15 days, are being complied with, the affidavit said.
The order was also forwarded to authorities like the advisory board, which is a requirement under Section 10 of the NSA, but despite this Wangchuk had not made any representation to them, even though they had allowed him to use this right, the reply said. It also added that only the detenue can make a representation before the advisory board, the law says.
Relying on the Supreme Court’s rulings in cases like Borjahan Gorey vs State of West Bengal (1972), the reply said the DM’s opinion should be given due consideration as he expected to know the situation prevailing in a district, and to take suitable action for maintaining public order there.
Besides this the superintendent of the Jodhpur Central Jail, where Wangchuk is lodged, also filed a response, a day before the DM.
Jail superintendent’s version
Pradeep Lakhawat, the superintendent of the Central Jail in Jodhpur also told the court in his reply that Wangchuk was being kept in the Jodhpur prison since 9:15 pm on the night of 26 September.
However, he was being treated in accordance with the Rajasthan Prison Rules, 2022, and other orders and circulars issued by the Rajasthan government, and being kept in a standard barrack in the general ward, measuring 20×20 feet. Although he is the sole occupant of the barrack, he is not in solitary confinement the reply says while adding that he was being allowed all rights available to other detenues.
His medical examination also revealed that he isn’t suffering from any chronic condition and was found to be medically sound and physically fit, the reply says while adding that he doesn’t take any medication either.
Wangchuk is also consuming a “normal” diet, complete with morning tea, breakfast, evening tea and dinner, every day since his detention, the superintendent writes in his reply, while adding that all allegations about his ill-health and not being provided appropriate care or food are totally “fallacious” and being made only for “emotive value”.
Interestingly, the reply also said that about 11 persons, including Wangchuk’s wife, lawyer and family members, were allowed to meet him in jail, although in the presence of police personnel, as the prison rules dictate.
(Edited by Amrtansh Arora)