Supreme Court Pushes Back As Centre Objects To Gandhi Comparison In Sonam Wangchuk Case

Mahatma Gandhi’s words became the focal point of an intense exchange in the Supreme Court during the hearing related to Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk, prompting strong objections from the Centre over any perceived comparison between the two.

During the proceedings, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta urged the court not to equate Wangchuk, who is under preventive detention under the National Security Act, with Mahatma Gandhi. He argued that such a comparison would amount to glorifying conduct he described as “completely anti-India” and cautioned against creating headlines suggesting that the court had drawn parallels with the Father of the Nation.

The bench clarified that Gandhi’s speech was referred to only in the context of his remarks about sacrifice for the nation and not to elevate or equate Wangchuk with him. The judges emphasised that speeches and statements must be read in their entirety rather than selectively interpreted.

Earlier in the hearing, the court had examined excerpts from Wangchuk’s statements cited by the government to justify his detention. Additional Solicitor General Natraj claimed that Wangchuk’s remarks hinted at the possibility of violent agitation similar to developments in Nepal. The bench questioned this interpretation and asked the government to place the full context on record.

When the complete passage was read out, the court observed that Wangchuk had expressed concern over the abandonment of peaceful, Gandhian methods and had described violent approaches as worrying rather than endorsing them. The bench noted that cautioning against violence cannot be construed as incitement when viewed in full context.

The Centre, however, maintained that Wangchuk selectively invoked Gandhian ideals while allegedly organising protests that disrupted public order under the banner of environmental activism. The Solicitor General also objected to references made to Gandhi’s last fasting speech, reiterating that no comparison should be drawn between Wangchuk and Mahatma Gandhi.

On the issue of health, the court recalled that it had earlier asked the Centre to reconsider Wangchuk’s detention in light of concerns over his condition. Mehta countered that Wangchuk was medically fit, stating that his health was being regularly monitored and that release on health grounds was not justified, dismissing such claims as a “social media facade.”

The hearing underscored the sharp divide between the judiciary and the government over the interpretation of Wangchuk’s actions, the use of Gandhian references in legal arguments, and the balance between national security and individual rights.