Wangchuk's Detention Case Escalates as Wife Alleges Unlawful State Surveillance in Supreme Court

New Delhi – The legal challenge against the preventive detention of renowned climate activist Sonam Wangchuk has taken a significant turn, with his wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, filing a detailed affidavit in the Supreme Court alleging she has been subjected to "close surveillance" by state authorities. The affidavit claims that Rajasthan Police and the Intelligence Bureau (IB) have been monitoring her movements and conversations, actions she argues are a blatant violation of her fundamental rights under the Constitution of India.

The case, which scrutinizes the use of the stringent National Security Act (NSA), 1980, against a prominent activist, now encompasses broader questions about the right to privacy, spousal privilege, and the permissible limits of state surveillance on the families of detainees.

Allegations of Pervasive Surveillance

In her sworn statement, Angmo details a pattern of persistent monitoring that allegedly began in late September, following a press conference she held in Delhi. "As soon as I step out of my accommodation in Delhi after September 30, a car and a man on a bike trail me wherever I go across Delhi," she stated.

The surveillance allegedly intensified during her visits to Jodhpur Central Jail, where Wangchuk has been held since his detention on September 26. Angmo claims that on her visits on October 7 and October 11, she was met by police at Jodhpur Airport and immediately escorted in a police vehicle. She was required to provide her travel itinerary to officials in advance and was not permitted to meet anyone else or travel freely within the city.

The most concerning allegation involves the invasion of private conversations between husband and wife. According to the affidavit, during her meetings with Wangchuk inside the jail, a Deputy Commissioner of Police and a female constable were positioned "within earshot and took notes of the conversation."

This direct monitoring of spousal communication forms the crux of her constitutional challenge. Angmo submitted to the Court, "No other person should have been privy to my conversations with Sonam Wangchuk. These actions are violative of my rights under Article 19 (right to freedom of speech and expression) and Article 21 (right to life and liberty) of the Constitution." She contends that as a free citizen, she is entitled to meet her husband without such intrusive restrictions on her movements or the content of her private discussions.

The affidavit further details how, after her jail visit, she was escorted directly to the railway station, even with several hours to spare before her train's departure. The police officers reportedly boarded the train with her, only alighting at the next major stop two hours into the journey.

The Legal Framework Under Scrutiny

Sonam Wangchuk was detained under Section 3(2) of the NSA following protests in Ladakh demanding statehood and inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which turned violent. Angmo’s primary petition before the Supreme Court challenges this detention as "illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional." She argues the detention order is a disproportionate measure intended not to preserve public order but to "silence a respected environmentalist and social reformer for espousing democratic and ecological causes."

The petition contests the detention on grounds that it violates Wangchuk's fundamental rights under Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (freedoms of speech, assembly), 21 (right to life and personal liberty), and 22 (protection against arrest and detention).

The new allegations of surveillance against Angmo add a critical layer to the case. Legal experts suggest this shifts the focus from solely the legality of Wangchuk's detention to the broader conduct of the state and its potential overreach. The right to privacy, firmly established as a fundamental right under Article 21 by the Supreme Court in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India , is central to these new claims. The Court will have to weigh the state's implicit national security concerns against an individual's right to privacy and liberty, particularly in the context of a spousal relationship.

Court Proceedings and Future Implications

A Supreme Court bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice NV Anjaria had previously, on October 15, deferred the hearing to October 29. The deferment was granted after Angmo's counsel requested time to amend the petition to include additional grounds and reliefs, likely referring to the surveillance allegations now formally submitted.

The government, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta in an earlier hearing, has maintained that Wangchuk's detention followed due process and his legal rights have not been violated. With the filing of this new affidavit, the state will now have to respond to specific and serious allegations of surveillance that extend beyond the detainee to his immediate family.

This case is being closely watched by the legal and civil rights communities. The Supreme Court's examination of these claims could have far-reaching implications for: 1. The Scope of Surveillance: It may lead to clearer jurisprudence on the legality of monitoring the family members of individuals held under preventive detention laws. 2. Right to Privacy in Detention: The Court's stance on the privacy of conversations between a detainee and their spouse could set a vital precedent for prison and detention protocols nationwide. 3. Accountability of Law Enforcement: The allegations against the Rajasthan Police and the IB place their actions under judicial scrutiny, raising questions of accountability and procedural fairness.

As the matter is set to be heard, the legal fraternity awaits the Supreme Court's response to what is shaping up to be a critical test of the balance between state security imperatives and the sacrosanct constitutional guarantees of liberty and privacy.