Sonam Wangchuk, Ladakh and the Petition for Constitutional Right to Dissent in India

Illustrations by Grace McKenna

On the 6th of October 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued notice in the most significant Habeas Corpus petition in India’s democratic memory since Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur V. Shivkant Shukla. The case at hand pertains to the detention of the 2018 Magsaysay Award winner Sonam Wangchuk: a scientist, educator and climate activist based in Ladakh, India.

The plea has been filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, seven days after the arrest. She stated that the Government has not supplied the grounds for her husband’s arrest, and that the arrest is motivated by malafide intent. As of the 15^th of October 2025, the District Magistrate and the Jail authorities have told the Supreme Court that grounds were supplied to Wangchuk in their affidavit. The Government has also submitted to the court that they will allow an exchange of notes between Dr. Angmo and her husband, pursuant to which the court has allowed modification of the petition and listed the matter next on October 29^th.

Sonam Wangchuk has consistently been in the news over the past few years due to his hunger strikes and protests, with the goal of including Ladakh in the 6th schedule of the Indian Constitution.

Ladakh is a uniquely sensitive geopolitical spot, as it is surrounded and disputed over by three nuclear powers. As such, I would like to interest the reader in the full context of this story.

The Birth of Ladakh

Ladakh is currently a Union Territory born out of the abrogation of Article 370 and subsequent enactment of the Jammu & Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 (Reorganisation Act). Before 2019, Ladakh was a part of the State of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K), the most densely militarised area of the world. 

The context of the J&K conflict is important to understand the Ladakh issue. Kashmir’s Accession to India started with a war with Pakistan. After the United Nations mediated ceasefire in 1949, Pakistan has maintained control of the Gilgit-Baltistan and western Kashmir regions, while India has maintained control of the eastern Jammu and Kashmir along with the Ladakh till Aksai Chin. Furthermore, the Aksai Chin region to the east was annexed by China in 1962. Pakistan further ceded the Shaksgam Valley in the north of the region to China in the Sino-Pakistan Agreement, 1963.

It is important to note that India has asserted its claim to the entire region of Kashmir since the signing of the Instrument of Accession. Under the Re-organisation Act, the Pakistan occupied Gilgit-Baltistan, the areas ceded to China by Pakistan in the Shaksgam Valley, the eastern annexed regions of Aksai Chin occupied by China and Ladakh were all organised into the Union Territory of Ladakh.

The Promises following The Reorganisation

It is worth noting that the Abrogation and the Reorganisation of J&K has been deemed very controversial. This move stripped J&K of its statehood and dissolved the Constituent Assembly of J&K. The reorganisation was also accompanied by the longest internet shutdown in the history of Democratic India.

After the formation of the Union territory of Ladakh, the ruling party in the Central Government, the Bhartiya Janta Party (BJP), won the 2020 Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council Elections. During their campaign, the BJP promised statehood and inclusion in the 6th Schedule of the Constitution. Due to the BJP’s promises to include Ladakh in the 6th Schedule, prominent citizens such as Sonam Wangchuk welcomed the Reorganisation of J&K, providing positive public perception of the dissolution of the constituent assembly in Ladakh.

However, the Government has since refused to discuss the issue altogether, prompting protests, hunger strikes, and a march to Delhi by Sonam Wangchuk.

What is the 6th Schedule and why does Ladakh want it?

 The 6th Schedule of the Indian Constitution provides autonomous administration powers to tribal areas over issues like land, forest, governance, taxation, licensing and judicial authorities.

Since the reporganisation, several green energy projects have been initiated in the region. There are concerns that the construction of these projects will damage Ladakh’s fragile ecology, such as through clearance of forest land and encroachment of essential cultural grazing land.  As such, protesters seek autonomous control of the region to protect its environment. 

Lead up to the Arrest and the Aftermath

On 24th September 2025, Ladakh saw an unprecedented display of violence and hostility. In 5 years of the protests, this remains the first and the sole incident of violence in this movement. The BJP’s Leh office was burnt down, and  four people were killed in retaliatory fire.  Eyewitnesses told “The Wire” that a part of the escalation was due to the Central Reserve Police Force firing directly at the protestors.

A curfew was imposed in Leh, and the internet was shut down in the aftermath of the violence. Two days after the violence unfolded, Sonam Wangchuk was arrested by the Ladakh Police under the 1980 National Security Act. The act has been criticised previously for retaining British colonial era legislations to arrest political dissent,  such as Defence of India Act, 1915.

The Director General of Police made a statement on the 27th of September regarding the arrest, stating “Sonam Wangchuk has a history of instigating. He has referred to the Arab Spring, Nepal and Bangladesh”.

On 29th September 2025, the Leh Apex Body (LAB) and others suspended their dialogue with the Government regarding the demands of the protesters, stating: “Talks can’t be held  at gunpoint.”

In his statement, the LAB’s co-chairman, Chering Dorjay Lakrook cited “accusations of treason” against the people of Ladakh and “baseless allegations” against Sonam Wangchuk as the reasons for the suspension of talks. He also accused the government of using disproportionate force against a peaceful agitation and the “killing of Ladakhi youth.”

His suspicion of the baseless allegations against Sonam Wangchuk is not without reason. On the 25^th of September 2025, the Government also cancelled the licence provided to Wangchuk’s Students’ Education and Cultural Movement of Ladakh (SEMCOL) to receive foreign funding under the 2010 Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act. This cancellation has been made by the government, which cited, among other things, “poor record keeping” and the “study of national security using foreign funding”.

At this juncture, I am compelled to point out that the MHA insists upon “study of sovereignty”, which is a banned activity, with foreign funding  actually being a study of “food sovereignty and security”. 

The Habeas Corpus Petition

At the time of the filing of the petition, Dr. Angmo had stated in a social media post that she had not been informed by the government of his health, his condition or the grounds of his detention. 

She has further claimed in the court that the arrest of the political activist without disclosure of the grounds of arrest violates his fundamental rights under Article 22 of the Constitution, which provides the fundamental right of protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.

It is worth noting that the last time a habeas corpus petition regarding arrest of political activists arrived in the Supreme Court was in 1976; when several opposition leaders and political activists were detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act of 1971. At the time, the Government argued that these arrests were made during the national emergency of June 1975, and hence did not have to respect the fundamental rights of citizens. At the time, the Supreme Court held that fundamental rights of citizens can be suspended during emergency.

It is worth noting that the 1975 emergency, by itself, is considered as a dark chapter in Indian democratic history. While the official documents cite “internal disturbance”, it is widely considered that the electoral disqualification of the Prime Minister Indira Gandhi (as she then was) by the Allahabad High Court was the actual reason for the emergency. Subsequently, The Shivkant Shukla judgement  was termed a failure for “all except the dissenting judge” by experts. In 2017, the Supreme Court of India overruled the “suspension of fundamental rights” aspect of the Shivkant Shukla judgement in K. Puttaswamy V Union of India.

However, the Supreme Court of India finds itself, yet again, faced with a habeas corpus petition; where civil and political rights hang in the balance. The only thing for certain is that the articulation of the Supreme Court’s decision will be under a microscope. I make this statement only in the context of how the outcome of this judgement shall be perceived in the public’s eyes, with Sonam Wangchuk’s exercising his political rights to hold a political party to its promises.