NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Wednesday permitted a plea by Gitanjali J Angmo, the wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, to amend her habeas corpus petition, to challenge the grounds of his preventive detention.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria allowed her to amend the plea to challenge the grounds of his detention under the National Security Act and posted the matter for consideration on October 29.
Wangchuk is currently lodged in Jodhpur central jail in Rajasthan.
He was arrested on September 26, after the violence in Ladakh claimed lives of four people and left scores others as injured over the demand for statehood for the region.
The Leh District Magistrate on Tuesday told the court that activist Wangchuk indulged in activities prejudicial to the national security, resulting into his detention under the National Security Act.
On Wednesday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner Angmo, sought permission of the court to amend the plea so that the grounds of detention supplied by the government may now be challenged appropriately.
Also Read: Wangchuk indulged in activities prejudicial to national security, Leh DM tells SC
He claimed that Wangchuk was not allowed to share the notes with his wife.
"He (Wangchuk) has made certain notes on his detention which he wanted to pass to the lawyer. Whatever notes he prepares, he is entitled to the assistance of the lawyer. All that we want is the notes be passed,” he said.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta said that he has no problem with the notes being shared with the petitioner, Angmo, but, he however, pointed out that the delay in providing the grounds of detention to her should not become a ground to challenge Wangchuk's detention.
The court on October 6 issued notice and sought response from the Centre, Union Territory of Ladakh, Superintendent of Police Jodhpur Central jail, after hearing the plea of Angmo against his detention under the National Security Act (NSA) and seeking his release.
Disclaimer: This content is produced and published by LawStreet Journal Media for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The views expressed are independent of any legal practice of the individuals involved.
