Centre Opposes Release Of Sonam Wangchuk; Supreme Court Examines Preventive Detention Law

Centre Opposes Release Of Sonam Wangchuk; Supreme Court Examines Preventive Detention Law

New Delhi: The central government on Wednesday informed the Supreme Court that it does not intend to release climate activist Sonam Wangchuk on health grounds, despite the court earlier suggesting such a possibility.

Wangchuk has been in detention since September 2025 and is currently lodged in Jodhpur jail. With six months having passed, the Centre told the court that the grounds for his detention continue to exist. It argued that given the seriousness of the allegations, no exception should be made in his case.

Wangchuk’s wife, Geetanjali Angmo, has approached the Supreme Court seeking his release through a habeas corpus petition.

What Indian Law Says On Preventive Detention

Preventive detention refers to the detention of a person without trial or conviction, based on suspicion that they may commit an offence in the future. Unlike punitive detention, which follows conviction for a past crime, preventive detention aims to stop potential offences before they occur.

Law enforcement authorities can detain a person under preventive detention laws if they believe such action is necessary to maintain public order, state security or other specified interests. In certain cases, arrests can be made without a warrant or prior authorisation from a magistrate.

Constitutional Provisions

Article 22 of the Constitution deals with safeguards for individuals who are arrested or detained. It contains specific provisions relating to preventive detention.

Under Article 22, preventive detention cannot ordinarily exceed three months unless an advisory board reports sufficient cause for continued detention.

However, Clause 7 of Article 22 empowers Parliament to prescribe circumstances in which detention may extend beyond three months without obtaining the opinion of an advisory board. Based on this provision, Parliament has enacted several special preventive detention laws.

The National Security Act And Other Laws

In Wangchuk’s case, the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, has reportedly been invoked. Under the NSA, a person can be detained for up to 12 months if authorities believe it is necessary to maintain national security or public order.

The NSA is considered one of India’s most stringent preventive detention laws.

Other preventive detention laws enacted by Parliament over the years include:

COFEPOSA (1974): Targeting smuggling and foreign exchange violations

PITNDPS Act (1988): Addressing illicit drug trafficking

National Security Act (1980): Focused on national security and public order

Safeguards Under Preventive Detention Laws

Article 22 mandates the creation of advisory boards comprising individuals qualified to be High Court judges. These boards review detention orders and determine whether sufficient grounds exist for continued detention.

Typically, the advisory board examines the evidence, may seek additional information, hears the detainee’s representation and then reports whether the detention is justified.

A detainee has the right to be informed of the grounds of detention. In ordinary preventive detention cases, these grounds must be communicated promptly. Under the NSA, however, the government has up to three weeks from the date of detention to place before the advisory board the grounds for detention and any representation made by the detainee.

Legal Remedy: Habeas Corpus Under Article 32

A writ of habeas corpus is one of the strongest constitutional remedies available to challenge unlawful detention. It is intended to protect the fundamental right to personal liberty.

Under Article 32 of the Constitution, a person can directly approach the Supreme Court seeking issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. The court can then direct authorities to produce the detainee and justify the legality of the detention.

In Wangchuk’s case, the Supreme Court is examining submissions from both sides before arriving at a decision on the legality and continuation of his detention.

Further hearings in the matter are expected in the coming days.