Kapil Sibal made a sharp and emotional remark while pressing the Supreme Court for urgent hearing in Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA detention case. He stressed that the matter deserves priority and no delay, citing serious constitutional violations.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India heard a petition on 12 January, filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, challenging his preventive detention. A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale heard detailed arguments, with Kapil Sibal mounting a strong constitutional attack on the detention order.
“I will not ask for anything beyond the 26th. I won’t seek even a single extra day. Even if I have to give up other matters, it doesn’t matter. This case is a priority for me.”
With this emphatic submission, senior advocate Kapil Sibal underscored the urgency and seriousness of the challenge to the detention of Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980, even though the statement was made at the conclusion of the day’s hearing.
Sibal argued that Wangchuk’s fundamental right under Article 22 of the Constitution to make an effective representation had been violated. He pointed out that the detention was based on four grounds, including four videos dated September 24, which were never supplied to the detenue.
According to him, this non-supply of material directly weakened Wangchuk’s ability to defend himself before the detaining authority and the Advisory Board.
During the hearing, Sibal submitted that Article 22(1) and Article 22(5) provide crucial safeguards in preventive detention cases and cannot be diluted by Section 5A of the NSA.
He argued that statutory provisions cannot override constitutional protections and that Section 5A could not be invoked when the relied-upon material itself had not been disclosed.
He also attacked the detention order for lack of independent application of mind, contending that the grounds of detention appeared to be copied word-for-word from recommendations of another authority.
According to Sibal, this showed “borrowed satisfaction” and rendered the detention legally unsustainable. He further highlighted that several documents relied upon were outdated and unrelated, with some incidents dating back to March 2024, even though the detention order was issued in September 2025.
Sibal told the Court that even the FIRs relied upon did not name Wangchuk or relate to his speeches, and that an FIR allegedly linked to violence had seen no progress months after its registration.
He stressed that preventive detention law requires a clear and direct link between the material relied upon and the detention order, which was missing in this case.
As the hearing concluded, Sibal pressed the Court to avoid prolonged adjournments, stressing that time was critical in a preventive detention matter.
It was at this stage that he made his pointed statement, declaring that he would not seek even a single extra day beyond the 26th and that he was willing to give up other professional commitments because the case was his top priority.
The hearing remained part-heard and is scheduled to continue on January 13, with the Supreme Court set to further examine whether Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA meets constitutional standards or suffers from fatal procedural lapses.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sonam Wangchuk
