Sonam Wangchuk Criticises Silencing Detainees as ‘Sad Day for Democracy’

Climate activist and education reformer Sonam Wangchuk has called it a day after silent protesters at outside Ladakh Bhawan in New Delhi were detained by the Delhi Police. The silent protesters came out to seek statehood for Ladakh with a demand to be placed in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution. It has gone quite disheartening with Section 144 of the Indian Penal Code invoked and several protesters, including Wangchuk, detained under pressure that such congregations go against law and order.

As Wangchuk described the situation as “sad for democracy,” he brought it out into the public that the citizens of a democratic nation have the right to express peacefully. This paper discusses the causes and circumstances that led to the protest, the legal issues it first caused, and Wangchuk’s efforts to attain Ladakh constitutional protections.

The Protest and Its Prevention
An activist from Ladakh and former work force for education sat on an indefinite fast from October 6, 2024. Sonam Wangchuk demanded statehood for Ladakh and its inclusion in the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which guarantees tribal areas some autonomous constitutional protections. Such provisions, Wangchuk and his friends further argue, are a must in view of preserving the unique culture of Ladakh and environmental sustainability in the wake of rapid development and climatic change.

On Sunday, October 13, 2024, Wangchuk and his supporters sat outside Ladakh Bhawan in New Delhi for a silent fast. It was to be an altogether peaceful affair, and there would not be any slogans or vandalism so as not to create any atmospherics that might lead to trouble in the aftermath. But the authorities invoked Section 144, that prohibits public gatherings in certain areas under specific circumstances, to hold back those who might cause trouble in its wake. Policemen said this was one of the reasons to take away the protesting people in buses after detaining them.

Addressing news agency ANI, Wangchuk said:

“We were told that it happened because Section 144 was promulgated here. This was sad, not only for us but for the democracy too. We feel sad for India today.”

Legal Perspective: Section 144 and Freedom of Speech
In short, Section 144 of the CrPC is basically a legal tool applied by authority to suspend the right to assemble whenever it feels that the public peace and order is reasonably threatened. The section is ordinarily applied in sensitive or critical situations wherein huge gatherings are visualized to be at risk of such violent acts or disruptions.

Still, the citizen is granted basic rights by Articles 19(1)(a) and Article 19(1)(b) of the Indian Constitution to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly. He was quoted to say that even for this particular case, enforcement of Section 144 was not required. He was of the view that his protest was non-violent and sounded issues concerning critical problems of the Ladakh people, hence the suppression would be a violation of democratic values.

“In this democratic country, if people cannot express themselves, it is violation of their freedom of speech, freedom of movement, Article 19,” Wangchuk said. “Normally, Section 144 is temporary and is applied only on reasonable grounds of fear of disruption.”

The Ongoing Legal Battle
Detention of supporters of Wangchuk outside Ladakh Bhawan is but one among several legal infractions associated with the activist’s movement. The Apex Body Leh, which filed a petition on behalf of Wangchuk and his group of ‘Padyatris,’ sought leave to stage a peaceful protest at Jantar Mantar from October 8 to October 23 in the Delhi High Court on October 8, 2024.

Citing the right to assemble peacefully as a fundamental constitutional right, the petition urges Justice Prathiba M Singh and Justice Amit Sharma, presiding over this matter. Notices have been issued to Delhi Police, the Government of NCT Delhi, and all such authorities. This matter will be taken up for a detailed hearing before the court determines whether Wangchuk can lawfully perform his protest at Jantar Mantar or not.

Why Ladakh Needs Constitutional Protection
What Wangchuk’s movement demands the most is for Ladakh to fall in the Third Schedule as reflected by the Sixth of the Constitution. The Sixth Schedule only allows the tribes to have their governance autonomy, referring to leaving the people living within such an area to their resources, cultural practices as well.

Wangchuk and his followers assert that Ladakh, basically tribal and vulnerable, requires such protections too. Infrastructure development and tourism are the very areas that have sprung up in Ladakh at a breakneck speed, and which raise the issue of environmental degradation besides locals’ being eroded out of their customs. The inclusion in the Sixth Schedule would give Ladakh constitutional protections through which the region would be able to manage its affair, preserve its culture, and protect the environment.

With this international fame through his educational and environmental movements, Wangchuk is now leading a major demands movement for the autonomy of Ladakh. He has gone on a hunger strike to draw attention to the delay of the government in agreeing to meet these demands.

Recent Developments and Conclusion
Fluid situation. Despite Sonam Wangchuk himself not being detained in the police action on Sunday, some of his supporters were detained. Delhi Police reacted to this incident also stating that permission for protesting outside Ladakh Bhawan was not proper from the protesters. Meanwhile, there is much interest in the judgment by the High Court due on Monday in respect of the application moved by the Apex Body Leh seeking permission to protest at Jantar Mantar.

However, the message of Wangchuk resounds not only in Ladakh regions but also in the minds and hearts of Indian citizens across the nation and their concern about democracy, freedom of speech, and environmental protection. The fight of Wangchuk that Ladakh must come under the Sixth Schedule is still current, and the fate of the following weeks will reflect whether peaceful protests go unhampered.

It is sacrosanct that protesting is a part of the democratic process, and Wangchuk’s movement has underlined the crux of the dilemma: whether public order should be maintained at the cost of citizens’ constitutional rights. The outcome of this court battle will be there for a long time, not only in Ladakh but in general for this country’s self-proclaimed democratic values.

Read more about related article, just click here