Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk on Thursday (November 12, 2026) described the restrictions imposed by the administration on him as “bad in law, arbitrary, vague and disproportionate” and conspicuously “not using words such as house arrest”. 

Invoking Section 163(1) of the BNSS, the Ladakh administration on Wednesday (November 11, 2026) evening shifted Mr. Wangchuk from a protest venue to his residence in Leh and has been allegedly restrained from leaving his residence.

“I was driven towards my village, where my residence is and was eventually taken to HIAL, reaching there at approximately 8.40 p.m. [on Wednesday]. I was told to remain at home under the supervision of police guards. Since that evening, dozens of armed police personnel [approximately 20 to 22] have been stationed at and around my residence,” said Mr. Wangchuk in a letter to senior officials of Ladakh and the Union Home Ministry.

Referring to the order issued by the Additional District Magistrate, Leh, Mr. Wangchuk said it disclosed no reasons justifying the necessity or proportionality of such an extended restriction, nor does it identify any continuing emergency or threat attributable to me that would warrant restraints of such duration.”

“The actions have clearly been taken to curtail my movement and rights before the election. The order is clearly bad in law, arbitrary, vague and disproportionate. I request you to kindly offer the clarification at the earliest, and withdraw this order without delay,” said Mr. Wangchuk, in the letter.

He claimed there was “no explicit order of house arrest or directing deployment of police personnel was shown to me then, and none has been served on me since”.

“I have not sought any security cover, and I am not aware of any threat to my person. No written order authorising this deployment has been furnished to me, and I do not know who directed it, on what date, or under what provision of law. I would be grateful to be informed of these particulars,” he added.

The Ladakh activist, who was arrested in September last year under the National Security Act (NSA) and released in March this year, said the Ladakh administration’s order “conspicuously does not use words such as “house arrest”.

“It does not use the words “detention” or “confinement”. It nowhere directs me to remain at my residence — a direction given orally to me by the personnel who picked me up and are now present outside my house. The order does not mention the scope or extent of the restrictions imposed on my movement, leaving their implementation to the discretion of the police personnel deployed,” said Mr. Wangchuk.

Civic polls

The alleged restrictions on Mr. Wanghuk came when Ladakh was preparing to hold polls for panchayat and municipality on November 21 and for hill councils on December 4. However, Ladakh’s key civil society bodies, Leh Apex Body and Kargil Democratic Alliance (KDA), have organised protests and demanded postponement of council elections to April-May next year.

The authorities, in the order, directed that Mr. Wangchuk should be “refrained from engaging in any activity, organising or participating in any unauthorised rally, procession or public gathering or conduct that is likely to cause a breach of public peace disturbance of public tranquillity or obstruction to the peaceful conduct of the ongoing electoral processes within the territorial jurisdiction of Leh”.