6 days ago
6
A complaint by Gitanjali Angmo, the wife of detained activist Sonam Wangchuk, in the Supreme Court, that the state and its agencies watch her every step, intervene, and even whisk her away in vehicles with curtains drawn over windows, raises the question of whether the personal freedom and right to free movement of a family member of a person restrained under the National Security Act is also forfeit.
Mr. Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980 following violent protests on September 24 in Leh. He has been shifted to the Jodhpur Central Jail.
Ms. Angmo related to the apex court how Intelligence Bureau (IB) officers and the Rajasthan Police intercepted her the moment she landed and came out of the airport on the two occasions she visited Mr. Wangchuk at the Jodhpur Central Jail, on October 7 and October 11.
She said, in an affidavit, the conduct of the agencies during both visits affected “my personal freedom and fundamental rights as a free citizen of India”.
“As soon as I landed and came out of the airport, the officers of the IB and the Rajasthan Police 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 they took me to the jail for the meeting. The officers took me to the office of the Jail Superintendent and were with me for the entire period. Before every visit, they would ask me the details of my journey and the time I would be in Jodhpur,” she narrated to the court.
Two officers would sit “within earshot” during her entire meeting with Mr. Wangchuk, she said. Her notes containing his instructions for legal assistance were photographed.
The activist’s wife said she was not allowed to meet anyone in Jodhpur and was “taken” to the railway station, “even when I had a few hours to spare before boarding the train”. Her “escort” boarded the train with her and only alighted at Merta Road Junction, the next stop, two hours after Jodhpur.
“As a free citizen, I am entitled to go to Jodhpur when I like, how I like, and meet my husband without restrictions of my movements. No other person should have been privy to my conversations with Sonam Wangchuk. These actions are violative of my rights under Article 19 (right to free expression) and Article 21 (right to personal liberty) of the Constitution,” Ms. Angmo, through her counsel Sarvam Ritam Khare, submitted in the top court.
She was “followed and under surveillance in Delhi constantly”, Ms. Angmo siad. She had held a press conference in the national capital on September 30, and was tailed from her accommodation by a car and a man on a motorcycle.
In its response, the Home Department of the Union Territory of Ladakh, through its Additional Secretary, Rigzin Spalgon, denied Ms. Angmo’s allegations as “baseless” and an “afterthought that deserves only to be rejected”.
The administration said it did not have any personnel “present” during Ms. Angmo’s visits to Jodhpur. It “outrightly denied” putting her under any kind of surveillance by car or motorcyle in Delhi.
“There is no question of any kind of violation of Articles 19 and 21 by the Administration,” the Home Department insisted.
English (US) ·