Gitanjali Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, leaves the Supreme Court after a hearing in Delhi. File | Photo credit: PTI
The complaint by Gitanjali Angmo, the wife of detained activist Sonam Wangchuk, in the Supreme Court that the state and its agents follow her at every step, intervene and even take her away in vehicles with the windows rolled down, raises the question of whether the personal freedom and the right to free movement of a family member of a person restricted by the National Security Act are forfeited.
Mr. Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act (NSA) in 1980 following violent protests on September 24 in Leh. He was taken to Jodhpur Central Jail.
Ms Angmo told the high court how Intelligence Bureau (IB) and Rajasthan Police officers detained her as she landed and exited the airport on two occasions when she visited Mr Wangchuk in Jodhpur Central Jail on October 7 and October 11.
She said in an affidavit that the conduct of the agencies during both visits affected “my personal freedom and the fundamental rights of a free citizen of India”.
“As soon as I landed and came out of the airport, the IB and Rajasthan police officers came to me right outside the airport and asked me to sit in their car with white curtains drawn on the windows blocking the view and took me to the jail for a meeting. The officers took me to the jail warden’s office and were with me the whole time I was there and they would ask me about the details of every visit. Jodhpur,” she told the court.
The two officers would sit “in earshot” throughout her meeting with Mr. Wangchuk, she said. Her notes containing his instructions for legal aid were photographed.
The activist’s wife said she was not allowed to meet anyone in Jodhpur and was “taken” to the railway station, “even though I had a few hours before boarding the train”. Her “escort” boarded the train with her and got off only at Merta Road Junction, the next stop, two hours after Jodhpur.
“As a free citizen, I have the right to go to Jodhpur whenever I like and meet my husband without restriction on my movements. No other person should have been privy to my conversations with Sonam Wangchuk. These acts violate my rights under Article 19 (right to freedom of expression) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty) of the constitution,” said Senior Advocate R. Sarva Angmorem by Angmore. court.
She was “constantly watched and monitored in Delhi”, Ms Angmo siad. On September 30, she held a press conference in the state capital and was taken away from her accommodation by a car and a man on a motorcycle.
The Ministry of Home Affairs of the Union Territory of Ladakh, through its Additional Secretary Rigzin Spalgon, in its reply denied Ms. Angmo’s allegations as “baseless” and “an implication that deserves only to be rejected”.
The administration said it had no staff “present” during Ms Angmo’s visits to Jodhpur. He “absolutely denied” that he was escorting her in Delhi by car or motorbike.
“There is no question of any violation of Articles 19 and 21 by the administration,” the home ministry claimed.
Published – 21 Oct 2025 20:59 IST
