Sonam Wangchuk slams delay in making public judicial panel report on September 2025 police action

Sonam Wangchuk slams delay in making public judicial panel report on September 2025 police action Ladakh’s most vocal activist, engineer‑turn‑political commentator Sonam Wangchuk, has publicly rebuked the government for dragging its feet on the release of the judicial panel’s findings into the September 2025 police operation in the region. The panel, appointed by the central administration after protests erupted over a controversial police firing, was expected to submit its report within six months. Instead, officials have pushed the deadline to an indefinite future, prompting Wangchuk to warn that civil society may have to step in if transparency is not restored promptly..

Wangchuk, who rose to national prominence after his “Ice Stupas” water‑conservation project, has long been a critic of heavy‑handed state tactics in Ladakh. In a press conference held in Leh on Tuesday, he said the “unjustifiable delay” was “a calculated attempt to dilute accountability”. He cited the panel’s limited mandate – which, according to him, excludes any examination of the decision‑making hierarchy that authorised the use of live ammunition – as evidence that the government is more interested in saving face than delivering justice..

The September 2025 incident involved a police convoy that entered the contested Kargil‑Zanskar corridor to enforce a curfew after a series of stone‑throwing protests. According to eyewitnesses, officers opened fire on a crowd of unarmed demonstrators, resulting in at least twelve fatalities and dozens of injuries. Human‑rights groups immediately called for an independent inquiry, and the central government responded by constituting a three‑member judicial panel headed by retired Justice Arvind Kumar..

Yet, months after the panel’s formation, its report remains locked away. Critics argue that the delay violates the principles of the Right to Information Act and undermines public trust in democratic institutions. “When a panel is set up to investigate police excess, the public has a legitimate expectation that its findings will be disclosed without undue procrastination,” said Meera Singh, senior researcher at the Centre for Justice and Governance..

Singh added that the lack of a clear timetable fuels speculation that the report may contain politically sensitive revelations that the state would prefer to keep hidden. In response to mounting pressure, the Ministry of Home Affairs issued a brief statement affirming that “the panel’s work is ongoing and its recommendations will be presented to the appropriate authorities in due course”. The statement stopped short of providing a concrete date, instead promising “prompt action” once the findings are compiled..

Observers note that such vague assurances have become a hallmark of the government’s handling of contentious investigations, often leaving aggrieved communities in a state of limbo. Wangchuk warned that civil society is prepared to fill the void left by the government’s inertia. “If the panel does not table its report soon, we will consider constituting a ‘people’s tribunal’ to probe the police excess and firing,” he declared, referencing a model used in other Indian states where citizens’ groups convene ad‑hoc courts to examine alleged state violence..

The activist stressed that such a tribunal would not replace formal judicial processes but would serve as a moral compass, ensuring that the victims’ voices are heard. The proposal for a people’s tribunal has drawn mixed reactions. While several NGOs in Leh and Srinagar have expressed support, citing precedents in Gujarat and Kerala where citizen‑led inquiries led to policy reforms, legal scholars caution that the tribunal’s findings would lack enforceable power..

“A people’s tribunal can generate public pressure, but it cannot compel the state to act,” noted Professor Anil Sharma of Delhi University’s School of Law. Nevertheless, Wangchuk argues that moral authority can be a potent catalyst for change. The government’s reluctance to release the panel’s report also about the independence of the judiciary in politically sensitive cases..

Critics point out that Justice Kumar, the panel’s chair, previously served as a legal adviser to the Ministry of Home Affairs, creating a perceived conflict of interest. “When the same establishment appoints its own overseer, doubts about impartiality are inevitable,” said former Supreme Court judge Ramesh Chandra, now a senior counsel at the Supreme Court. Amid the controversy, families of the September 2025 victims have organised vigils and hunger strikes, demanding both accountability and compensation..

“We have been waiting for justice for over a year. The silence from the authorities is deafening,” said Asha, mother of one of the deceased. Her plea was echoed by dozens of relatives who have filed petitions in the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, seeking a directive for the panel to submit its findings within a stipulated timeframe..

Legal experts predict that the High Court may intervene if the panel’s delay continues unabated. Under Article 142 of the Constitution, the court possesses the power to issue writs compelling government agencies to fulfill their duties. “If the panel’s report is essential to adjudicating the pending petitions, the judiciary will have no choice but to enforce its release,” remarked Advocate Priya Menon, who is representing the victims’ families..

International human‑rights organisations have also taken note, with Amnesty International issuing a statement urging the Indian government to “uphold its commitment to transparency and ensure that any investigation into alleged police misconduct is conducted without obstruction”. The organization highlighted the broader implications for India’s democratic reputation, especially ahead of upcoming elections where civil‑rights records are.