Leh DM Accuses Sonam Wangchuk of National Security Violations in Supreme Court Filing

A significant legal and political confrontation is unfolding in Ladakh, as the Leh District Magistrate (DM) has formally informed the Supreme Court that Magsaysay award-winning environmentalist Sonam Wangchuk indulged in "activities prejudicial to national security." This explosive claim was made in an affidavit filed before the apex court, where the DM contended that Wangchuk violated a bond he had signed, which stipulated that he would not engage in any activity that could disturb public peace or communal harmony.

Wangchuk, widely recognized for his innovative work in education and climate action, has been on a hunger strike, advocating for critical demands for Ladakh: special status under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution and statehood.

These demands stem from concerns over the region's unique ecological fragility and the protection of its indigenous culture, especially after the revocation of Article 370 and the bifurcation of Jammu and Kashmir into two Union Territories.

According to the Leh DM's affidavit, Wangchuk's actions went beyond peaceful advocacy.

The DM alleged that the environmentalist used press conferences and social media to call for public protests, including a "Pashmina March" towards the China border. These activities, the DM argued, were calculated to incite a law and order situation and potentially foster communal disharmony within the sensitive border region.

The administration's concerns are palpable, with the DM stating that Wangchuk's "irresponsible statements" and calls for large-scale gatherings posed a direct threat to public order.

In response to these perceived threats, Section 144 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which prohibits public gatherings, was imposed in Leh. The affidavit detailed instances where permission for public gatherings sought by Wangchuk's supporters was denied, citing the potential for unrest and the violation of previous undertakings.

However, Sonam Wangchuk's legal representatives have vehemently denied these allegations.

They informed the Supreme Court that their client has strictly adhered to peaceful and democratic means of protest. His hunger strike, they assert, is a constitutionally protected form of dissent, aimed at drawing attention to the pressing issues facing Ladakh's environment and its people's political aspirations, rather than instigating violence or disharmony.

The Supreme Court is currently hearing a petition that challenges restrictions imposed on Wangchuk's movement and freedom of speech.

This case brings into sharp focus the delicate balance between the right to protest and the state's prerogative to maintain national security and public order, particularly in regions with strategic significance like Ladakh. The outcome of these proceedings will undoubtedly have significant implications for environmental and political activism in the region.