Wangchuk Denies Arab Spring Overthrow Allegation in Supreme Court
Wangchuk, detained under the NSA, rejects claims of inciting violence, emphasizing his democratic right to peaceful protest.
Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, currently in Jodhpur Central Jail, appeared in the Supreme Court on Thursday to deny allegations that he threatened to overthrow the government like the Arab Spring. His lawyer, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, argued that Wangchuk’s statements were misrepresented and that he only exercised his democratic right to critique and protest.
Sibal told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale that police relied on a selectively edited video to mislead authorities. “The video shows Wangchuk praising the government and the Prime Minister while advocating peaceful protest, not violence,” he stated, providing a transcription to support his claim.
The activist also refuted claims that he made derogatory remarks against Hindu gods or suggested that people of Ladakh would not support the Indian Army in war. Sibal said Wangchuk’s remarks about Ram were allegorical, criticizing the government’s failure to uphold constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule for Ladakh.
Also Read: Supreme Court Halts UGC's New Equity Rules, 2012 Norms Back in Place
Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, filed the plea challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA). She contended that the detention was arbitrary, lacked proper grounds, and violated his fundamental rights, as he was not given an adequate opportunity to make a representation against the action.
The detention followed violent protests in Leh on September 24, 2025, demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule protections for Ladakh, which left four dead and nearly 90 injured. The government accused Wangchuk of inciting the violence, though Angmo stressed that he had condemned the unrest publicly and promoted non-violence.
The Supreme Court hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on February 2. Wangchuk’s legal team argued that the detention order relied on “stale FIRs, vague imputations and speculative assertions,” calling it a gross abuse of preventive powers that threatened constitutional liberties and due process.
Also Read: Supreme Court Judge Questions Executive Role in Judicial Transfers
