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 priority by a constitutional court, but it seems the times, they are a changing. The challenge was not given the priority it deserved and the case lingered on for hearing, one day to the next and to the next and so on. Was this the right thing to do? The order deserved to be struck down by the Supreme Court on the ground of constitutional unfairness. People take part in a protest march demanding the release of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was detained following the September 24 violent clashes in Ladakh, at Chhatrapati Sambhaji Raje Garden, in Pune on October 4. Photo: PTIThe detaining authority also had other thoughts on its mind. Preventive detention was converted into punitive detention by transporting Sonam from Ladakh to Jodhpur. What was the reason? Was he transported because the detaining authority had the power to do so? If that is the only reason, then the next time a person from Ladakh is preventively detained, he may as well be transported to the Andaman Islands, the kala pani of yore. There was a time in the 1980s and 1990s when smuggling gold and some other items was profitable business. More often than not, the small fish or the carriers were caught by the customs authorities and subsequently preventively detained. The big fish were seldom caught. The courts were slow to interfere with the detentions since the feeling was that a smuggler had been detained and it might be better for him to cool off in jail. So the smuggler’s case would be taken up for hearing after a couple of months and then the detention order would be quashed on constitutional grounds. Sonam Wangchuk cannot be equated with a smuggler in preventive detention – he is nothing but a political detenu, much like those detained under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act or MISA during the Emergency. Even their cases were heard expeditiously. The detention order against Kuldip Nayar, the highly respected journalist, for example, was quashed in a couple of months. The differential treatment of Sonam is difficult to understand.He was in custody for about six months and one bright day, the detaining authority decided to revoke his suspension. Why? It is believed that either he or his wife or both gave an assurance that Sonam would mend his ways. If so, the assurance was nothing but an assurance given under duress and therefore not binding on anybody. Try and imagine being told (while you are in jail) that you have a choice between continued detention and freedom. You will obviously give whatever assurance is suggested, unless you enjoy being in jail. And so it is with Sonam Wangchuk. An assurance under duress is not binding in law.Sonam Wangchuk being assisted by a medical professional during a hunger strike by Cockroach Janata Party (CJP) demanding action over alleged irregularities in examinations and seeking the resignation of Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan, at Jantar Mantar, in New Delhi, Monday, July 13, 2026. Photo: PTI.I believe that the Supreme Court having fully heard or at least substantially heard the challenge to the preventive detention of Sonam, should have proceeded to judgment and quashed the detention order. Consider the impact of not delivering judgment. The state can, whenever it feels like, pass a preventive detention order against anybody on the specious ground of national security or apprehension of a public order situation, keep a person behind bars in a far away jail so that contact with family and friends, though possible, is extremely inconvenient and expensive and then release the detenu after six months or more after the detenu realises they cannot challenge the might of the state. Isn’t that draconian?Freedom today seems to be on a downward slide with increasing use of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Prevention of Money Laundering Act and now NSA. When will it stop? When will it be realised that life and personal liberty are fundamental and cannot be taken away on the whims and fancies of those in authority. Within a few months after his release, Sonam is now on an indefinite fast, this time for the youth of India and reform in our education system. The fast has been on for almost three weeks. Remember, he is fasting, not for his benefit, but for the youth of India and for reforms in our education system. The establishment does not seem to be concerned, either in Sonam’s message or in the youth or in reforms in our education system. For the establishment, Sonam may be dispensable. Are the youth also dispensable? Is our education system excellent, needing no reform? Does anybody, holding her or his hand on the heart, actually believe that? In the recent past, lakhs of youth have been traumatised, with entrance examinations being cancelled and examination papers being leaked. About 20 youth have also died by suicide. Sonam Wangchuk is speaking up for them, but the establishment is not listening. The mess in our education system, adversely affecting the youth, is such that the establishment has had to take assistance from the Army and the Air Force to conduct the NEET examination. Who is to blame for this state of affairs? Is no reform needed, seriously? Where does the buck stop? President Harry Truman of the United States is believed to have had a sign saying “The buck stops here” on his table in the Oval Office. Here, the buck is trying to find its feet but has now realised it has no legs.What is the solution to this impasse? First, the education minister should resign taking responsibility – constitutional morality demands it. Remember Lal Bahadur Shastri? He wasn’t the engine driver and had nothing to do with the terrible tragedy in Tamil Nadu. Yet, as the Railway minister he accepted accountability. He later became the prime minister. Who knows, the education minister may one day become the prime minister if he resigns now. Second, we repeatedly advise dialogue and diplomacy in international relations. Can we start a dialogue at home, with Sonam and his colleagues, for the good of India? Third, would it not be a good idea for the establishment to listen to and think about the youth of our country; the youth who hold our future in their hands? Silence cannot be an answer to everything.Justice Madan B. Lokur is a former judge of the Supreme Court of India.