→ Sonam Wangchuk's Arrest: Suppressing a Peaceful Voice In September 2025, large-scale protests erupted in Leh, Ladakh's capital, demanding full statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution for tribal protections. These demonstrations turned violent, resulting in four deaths and numerous injuries. Yet the key figure, Sonam Wangchuk—renowned for innovations like the 'Ice Stupa' for water conservation and education reforms—consistently advocated non-violence. Despite this, on September 26, 2025, he was detained under the National Security Act (NSA), a preventive detention law allowing up to one year in jail without trial.
The government claimed Wangchuk's 'provocative statements'—referencing movements in Nepal, the Arab Spring, and Bangladesh—incited violence. He faced accusations of links to Pakistan, was shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan, and was smeared online as a 'Chinese agent' or 'traitor.' However, no FIR, chargesheet, or concrete evidence was presented in a regular criminal trial. This was pure preventive detention: holding someone on the grounds that they 'might' pose a future threat to public order or national security.
Wangchuk remained in custody for nearly six months—about 170 days. His wife, Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo, filed a habeas corpus petition in the Supreme Court challenging the detention's legality. During hearings, the Court posed sharp questions to the government: Why was NSA invoked based on misinterpreted statements? Was there a genuine threat to national security? The bench highlighted apparent
mistranslations or misinterpretations of his speeches, and even questioned claims of using AI for analysis, deeming them dubious.
→ Release on March 14, 2026: A Step Back Before Court Scrutiny On March 14, 2026—just days before the Supreme Court's next scheduled hearing—the Ministry of Home Affairs revoked the NSA detention order with immediate effect. Wangchuk was released from Jodhpur Central Jail that afternoon. The official statement cited the need to "foster an environment of peace, stability, and mutual trust in Ladakh" and facilitate "constructive and meaningful dialogue with all stakeholders." He had already served roughly half the maximum NSA period.
The core question remains: If there was no real danger, why six months of detention? The timing—right before a potentially embarrassing Supreme Court ruling—suggests this was less a voluntary act of justice and more a tactical retreat to avoid legal defeat.
→ Parallels with Arvind Kejriwal: Same Script, Different Character
This is not an isolated incident. Former Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal faced a similar ordeal in the Delhi Excise Policy case. Agencies like the ED and CBI used stringent laws such as the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) to keep him in custody for months, even as sitting Chief Minister, right before elections. Allegations of corruption were leveled, but bail was repeatedly delayed. Courts questioned whether the arrests were politically motivated. Eventually, he secured bail, and in February 2026, a trial court discharged him (along with others like Manish Sisodia) entirely, refusing to take cognizance of the chargesheet and criticizing the probe.
Clear similarities between the two cases emerge:
→ Weaponization of Stringent Laws — NSA (preventive detention) and PMLA (money laundering) make bail extremely difficult. Both are deployed to sideline political opponents or activists without full trials.
→ Prolonged Custody Without Trial— Wangchuk: six months; Kejriwal: extended periods. The goal appears to be weakening movements or parties by keeping leaders out of action.
→ Court Rebuke Leading to Release/Discharge— When cases reached higher courts and serious questions were raised, authorities backed down—revoking detention or facing discharge—to avoid outright legal loss.
→ Media and IT Cell Role — Arrests trigger smear campaigns labeling individuals 'anti-national' or 'corrupt.' Releases bring silence or a 'peace and dialogue' narrative.
→ Democracy in Crisis: Is Dissent Now Punishable by Jail? This goes beyond two individuals—it's part of a broader trend affecting environmentalists, journalists, student leaders, and opposition figures. Power assumes that IT cells and media can tarnish anyone indefinitely. Yet when the judiciary holds up a mirror, retreat becomes inevitable.
People are waking up. After Wangchuk's release, Leh Apex Body called it a "big victory" vindicating Ladakh's stand. In Kejriwal's case, courts repeatedly noted 'political vendetta.' The real question: Has democracy reduced dissent to a cycle of jail and release? Is the judiciary the last bastion of hope?
Wangchuk's release feels more like a government compulsion than a triumph of justice. It proves that no matter how arrogant power becomes, it must bend before the Constitution and courts. But when will this cycle of detention and retraction end? Only when those in power view dissent not as a threat, but as an essential part of democracy.
Indian democracy remains resilient, but preserving it demands persistent questioning. If the price of raising one's voice is jail, then democracy risks becoming a mere name.
Sajjadali Nayani ✍
Friday World March 14, 2026
