A Bench comprising Justices Arvind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale was hearing a petition challenging Wangchuk’s arrest under the National Security Act (NSA) in connection with violence that erupted in Leh on September 24, 2025. Wangchuk was taken into custody two days later, on September 26, and has since been lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail.

Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta submitted that Wangchuk’s speech and conduct went beyond legitimate protest and entered the realm of incitement. He told the court that references to political upheavals in Nepal, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, coupled with suggestions that imprisonment could bring change, were calculated to provoke youth and create an “us versus them” narrative detrimental to national unity.

“The speech poses a direct threat to national security. Considering the situation on the ground, the District Magistrate took the correct decision,” Mehta argued, adding that Ladakh’s strategic importance, particularly its role in the Army’s supply chain, required preventive action to avert potential escalation.

Outlining the government’s position, Mehta stressed that courts do not sit in appeal over the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority under the NSA. He said the law empowers the District Magistrate to act on perceived threats to security and public order, and failure to do so in Ladakh’s context would amount to dereliction of duty.

The Centre further pointed to what it described as provocative elements in Wangchuk’s speech, including references to self-immolation and appeals that allegedly sought to emotionally mobilise young listeners. According to the government, these factors, taken together, justified invoking preventive detention provisions.

The petitioners, however, have maintained that Wangchuk is a well-known educationist and environmental activist whose arrest amounts to an excessive curtailment of free speech and democratic dissent. They argue that his detention under the NSA is disproportionate and unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court did not pass any interim order on Monday and posted the matter for further hearing on Tuesday at 2 pm. The case is being closely watched, given its implications for the balance between civil liberties and national security, particularly in border regions with heightened strategic sensitivity.