The Central Government on Monday vehemently opposed Climate Activist Sonam Wangchuk’s request to appear via video conferencing from Jodhpur Central Jail during Supreme Court proceedings challenging his detention under the stringent National Security Act. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta argued that granting such facility to Wangchuk would set an unacceptable precedent, stating that identical treatment would then have to be extended to all convicts across the country.

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria deferred the matter to December 15 without ruling on the video appearance request. The court is examining a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali J Angmo, who contends that the activist’s preventive detention is illegal, arbitrary, and designed solely to suppress his peaceful advocacy for Ladakh’s statehood and Sixth Schedule safeguards.

The petition highlights multiple procedural violations, asserting that the detention order relies on stale and irrelevant FIRs, four of which do not even name Wangchuk and three registered against unknown persons. It further alleges that authorities deliberately obstructed Wangchuk’s statutory right to make an effective representation before the Advisory Board by denying his authorised representative access to crucial documents.

Also Read: Sonia Gandhi Urges Centre to Declare Delhi Air Pollution a Public Health Emergency

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioner, pressed for Wangchuk’s virtual participation, emphasising the case’s urgency and the activist’s continued incarceration outside Ladakh. The Centre’s resistance has intensified criticism from rights groups, who view the stand as another attempt to isolate Wangchuk and limit judicial scrutiny of the NSA’s application against a prominent non-violent protester.

As Ladakh’s apex bodies continue demanding Wangchuk’s unconditional release, the Supreme Court’s forthcoming hearing will determine whether serious constitutional and statutory safeguards under the National Security Act were breached in what many describe as a calculated move to silence dissent in the strategically sensitive union territory.

Also Read: Punjab Unites Against Centre’s Bid to Alter Chandigarh’s Status Under Article 240