Sonam Wangchuk walked free on March 14, 2026, but not because justice moved swiftly. Furthermore, authorities revoked his preventive detention just two days before a crucial Supreme Court hearing. Additionally, the court had already indicated that the 25th hearing would finally be the last one. Moreover, Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali J Angmo had filed a habeas corpus petition challenging his detention back in October 2025. Consequently, the case exposed a deeply troubling pattern in India’s legal system. Therefore, his release raised more questions about justice than it answered.
How Wangchuk Ended Up Behind Bars
Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk faced detention on September 26, 2025 in Leh. Furthermore, authorities detained him following protests demanding statehood and constitutional safeguards for Ladakh. Additionally, Angmo filed her habeas corpus petition on October 3, 2025, just one week after his detention. Moreover, she argued clearly that his detention aimed to silence legitimate political dissent. Consequently, the petition began its long and frustrating journey through India’s judicial system. Therefore, what should have been a swift legal remedy turned into a months-long ordeal.
Data Reveals a Broken System
A 2020 empirical study by advocate Shrutanjaya Bharadwaj analysed 286 Supreme Court judgments directly. Furthermore, the study examined 63 cases specifically involving preventive detention between 2000 and 2019. Additionally, the findings painted a deeply alarming picture of habeas corpus proceedings in India. On average, cases took 953 days, over 2.6 years, from detention to final disposal completely. Moreover, even counting only time before the Supreme Court, the average reached 528 days. Consequently, the study concluded that habeas corpus had become “too little and too late” as a remedy. Therefore, the data confirmed what many legal experts had long suspected about the system.
Detention Ends Before Courts Can Decide
The study revealed one particularly devastating statistic about India’s habeas corpus system. Furthermore, in 63.49 percent of cases, judicial proceedings outlasted the maximum detention period entirely. Additionally, in around 36 percent of cases, Supreme Court delays alone crossed this limit completely. Moreover, the study stated directly that this delay “frustrates the point of the appeal or petition.” Consequently, detainees spent an average of 344 days in custody before courts decided their cases. Furthermore, even when courts found detentions illegal, detainees had already spent around 278 days behind bars. Therefore, the Supreme Court itself played a significant role in rendering habeas corpus proceedings meaningless.
High Courts Show the Same Pattern
A 2024 follow-up study examined 7,448 habeas corpus petitions in the Madras High Court directly. Furthermore, the study covered cases filed between 2000 and 2022 across two full decades. Additionally, the Madras High Court took an average of 141 days to decide each petition. Moreover, by that point detainees had already spent approximately 181 days in custody on average. Consequently, in 87.9 percent of petitions, around 6,547 cases, courts ultimately found the detention illegal. However, those detainees had already spent an average of 182 days behind bars before their release. Therefore, even high court proceedings failed to deliver timely justice to wrongfully detained individuals consistently.
Perhaps the most troubling finding concerned government revocations of detention orders specifically. Furthermore, in 722 Madras High Court cases, the government revoked detention orders before courts could rule. Additionally, the study warned that such revocations actively “frustrate the judicial process” in practice. Moreover, this pattern allows the executive to escape accountability for potentially illegal detentions completely. Consequently, Wangchuk’s case fits this exact pattern, released two days before a final Supreme Court hearing. Therefore, India’s habeas corpus system urgently needs structural reform to prevent governments from repeatedly using detention, then quietly walking away before courts can deliver meaningful accountability and justice
