The Centre informed the Supreme Court on Thursday that normalcy has been restored in the Union Territory of Ladakh following the detention of prominent climate activist Sonam Wangchuk. The government asserted that the decision to take him into custody was both correct and justified, citing a significant reduction in agitation and violence after his arrest.
Government's Justification for the Detention Order
Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj presented the Centre's stance before a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale. He argued that Wangchuk was the primary instigator behind the unrest that erupted in Ladakh last September, which tragically resulted in the deaths of four individuals.
"He was the chief provocateur that led to the violence in which four people were killed. After his detention, the agitation and violence came under control. Hence, it was proved that the detention order was a perfect order, which was justified in the situation," Nataraj stated emphatically during the proceedings.
Procedural Compliance and Legal Arguments
Concluding his submission, the ASG emphasized that all procedural requirements were meticulously followed during Wangchuk's detention. He elaborated on the legal framework, noting that once statutory obligations are met, the subjective judgment of the detaining authority should not be questioned.
"Once there is compliance of statutory requirements, there is no question to sit over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority. Such order can be passed on suspicion or reasonable probability," Nataraj explained, reinforcing the government's position that the detention was legally sound.
Upcoming Legal Proceedings
The hearing is scheduled to resume on February 16, when senior advocate Kapil Sibal will present arguments on behalf of Sonam Wangchuk. This next phase of the case is anticipated to delve deeper into the legal nuances surrounding the detention and its implications for civil liberties in the region.
The Centre's defense highlights ongoing tensions in Ladakh, where environmental activism and governance issues have sparked significant public discourse. The outcome of this legal battle could set important precedents for how such cases are handled in the future.
