Listen to this article:

Sonam Wangchuk has had a very rough year, to put it mildly, and is continuing to have a rough time with no end in sight. His struggle is for the people of Ladakh and the youth of India. I believe, he has been mistreated by the establishment. Does he deserve it? I don’t think so. He needs affirmation and support for the causes of his struggle.

In September last year, he was preventively detained under the National Security Act, a draconian law, apparently for no rhyme or reason. The Ladakh administration perversely thought he was a threat to public order or national security and so it slapped a preventive detention order to silence him. Had he committed an act causing a public order situation or a national security risk, he should have been arrested, charge-sheeted, tried and punished for the offence. The fact that penal action was not taken against him, and only preventive action taken, is a clear indication that he was only a potential threat and had not committed any offence. Preventive detention laws are, as the title suggests, preventive in nature, not penal or punitive.

Sonam demanded statehood for Ladakh and protested when he believed it was not being seriously considered. Is a peaceful protest for statehood a crime? If so, shouldn’t all those in Andhra Pradesh protesting (sometimes violently) for a separate state of Telangana have been preventively detained? Instead they were rewarded with statehood. One man’s meat is another man’s poison. 

The validity of the preventive detention order incarcerating Sonam was challenged in the Supreme Court. From reports in newspapers and reports of the proceedings in the Supreme Court, it appears that the strict and rigorous procedure for preventive detention was not adhered to by the establishment, as required by Article 22 of the Constitution. A challenge to a preventive detention order is usually given topmost........

© The Wire