The Supreme Court heard Sonam Wangchuk’s plea challenging his detention under the National Security Act, with Kapil Sibal alleging selective and incorrect speech transcripts. The Bench has now sought the original speech record and ordered the pen drive evidence to be sealed and produced before the Court.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Monday heard the petition filed by Gitanjali J. Angmo challenging the preventive detention of Ladakh climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act (NSA). A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna B. Varale heard the case.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Sonam Wangchuk, began his rejoinder arguments and informed the Court that he would read from a prepared note to save judicial time. The matter is likely to conclude soon, with the judgment expected to be reserved after arguments are completed.
At the outset, the Court indicated scheduling constraints. The Bench observed,
“Mr. Sibal will take the matter at 3;00pm. lot of matter are pending.”
To this, Senior Advocate Sibal responded,
“Noted, Mylords.”
When the matter was taken up, Sibal submitted,
“I will read from what was argued. So I prepared a note, so I’ll just read that note first. I don’t waste your Lordship’s time. I give references as well as to both the judgments as well as to those submissions.”
He argued that the detention order failed to consider key and proximate material. According to him, the most important document was a speech delivered by Wangchuk on September 24 from the Anshan (hunger strike) site, where he called off the protest and appealed for peace. Sibal stated,
“One, the most important and proximate documentary evidence that in the speech made by the detenu on 24-09 from the Anshan site in which he called off the Anshan with immediate effect and openly appealed for peace in the Ladakh region, which are not six curtains, which was available with the authorities, was not referred to or raised before the detaining authority.”
The Court sought clarification, asking,
“According to you, which is the relevant document?”
Sibal replied,
“The speech itself. 24th night, 25th.”
He further submitted that only two acts were attributed to Wangchuk — the padyatra held in September-October 2024 and the incident of September 24. He pointed out that no violence was linked to the padyatra and that it was widely described as peaceful by the media. Regarding the September 24 event, he argued that Wangchuk publicly condemned violence.
Challenging the FIRs relied upon in the detention order, Sibal argued,
“1. Three of the five FIRs that have been relied upon neither named the detention nor contained specific allegations against him, have no relevance, and are entirely unrelated to the acts of the detention. 2. Additionally, out of the eight videos relied upon in paragraph 4, this is important, of the detention order, four videos are more than one year old.”
He contended that these materials were legally stale and could not sustain detention under Section 5A of the NSA.
“These videos, along with other material relied upon, are in the eyes of law stale and therefore cannot form the basis of an independent ground under section 5A.”
The Court asked,
“This is in addition to the authorities you have already relied on?”
Sibal responded,
“Yes, yes.”
The Bench then stated,
“Then in that event, we’ll give you an opportunity.”
When Sibal raised concerns about new judgments being cited by the other side, the Court remarked,
“But to reply to that particular judgment which you are now relying upon, we will give them an opportunity. Normally reply to reply is not permission.”
Sibal replied,
“That is why if you are giving anything new, how could I know what they were going to argue? That’s why. I would never know what their proposition is.”
A major issue raised during the hearing concerned the accuracy of transcripts of Wangchuk’s speeches. Sibal submitted,
“They have supplied and relied upon incorrect transcripts of the videos, portions of which have been selectively extracted so as to mislead the detaining authority into arriving at its subjective satisfaction.”
Justice Kumar asked,
“His speech is in English or in Hindi?”
Sibal replied,
“Ladakhi.”
Reading from the alleged actual speech, Sibal said,
“If the government does not have affection for all its citizens, care for the environment or violent constitutional rights of indigenous population by not granting their rights to such government is an obstacle for progress.”
He argued that the detention order relied on statements that were not part of the real speech.
The Court questioned the Union’s version, stating,
“Mr. Solicitor, we want the actual transcript of the speech What he says is something different, what is found in your text is something different, what he is relying upon and asserting that this is the correct speech is something different.”
Sibal added,
“My only request to your Lords is not something that comes as a surprise to them. That’s it. It is something that I have stated, I have argued. They have chosen not to respond.”
He further said,
“This tabular column, whatever it has been furnished to the submitted to this court is based upon the translation of these videos, nothing else.”
On the State’s argument that multiple grounds supported the detention, the Additional Solicitor General submitted,
“Detention order, multiple factors or multiple issues might have been taken to the mind because sole issue alone is not the criteria to pass the order of detention.”
Justice Varale responded that accurate translation was essential and observed that at least the direct transcripts should be provided.
At one point, during a lighter exchange, Justice Varale remarked,
“Mr. Sibal, you must have heard that couplet, humne wo sun liya, jo usne kaha hi nahi.”
Sibal responded,
“And humne keh diya, usne suna hi nahi.”
Sibal argued that the principle of segregation of grounds could not apply in this case. He submitted,
“These are series of acts that are separate and identifiable on the basis of which a detention order can be passed, but the cumulative impact of the materials available resulting ultimately in the passing of the order of detention.”
He further explained,
“Even if one particular ground lacked supporting documentation, the principle of segregation allowed the remaining grounds to sustain the detention.”
However, he maintained that this case did not involve repetitive unlawful acts.
“if i am instigating the crowd i did in 2022,2023, 2024 2025, I did it again in 2025, I did it again in 2026. Your lordship can well say, Look, you’ve been doing it in the past, these are the instances that you’ve done it.”
Justice Kumar posed a hypothetical, asking whether escalating speeches could be treated as separate instances. Sibal responded,
“Well, it will all depend on what kind of speeches he makes.”
Justice Kumar observed,
“what we are contemplating is whether this can be put in a straitjacket form.”
Sibal replied,
“No matter this court can ever be put in a straitjacket form. Unless one of your lordships decides the principle of law.”
He emphasized that Wangchuk chose peaceful protest methods.
“We must do something about it. That’s all. And what is the option that is chosen for us? The option is of hunger strike, right? Not option of violence, not option of self-immolation.”
He also criticized what he described as a “copy-paste” approach in the detention order and said the documents relied upon were not properly supplied to the detainee.
“So my right to represent before the state government, because I have two rights, violated per se. And we didn’t know this till my learned friend surprised me.”
He argued,
“Showing the document is not enough. What is the document? My speech? Those four videos? Showing is of no use to me. You have to give me the document.”
Sibal added that mere display of materials was insufficient.
“He does not say that the laptop was given to me. He says that the DIG, whoever he was, sat with me and showed me. Let’s assume he’s right. It’s not part of the counterbalance. It’s still violation of Article 22. You have to supply the document.”
He stressed,
“He is in jail and has no access to his own documents. It is reiterated that it is being a constitutional imperative for the detaining authority to give the documents relied upon and referred to in the order of detention prior by the grounds of detention.”
On the issue of pen drives, Sibal explained,
“There are two pen drives in question: 1.The first pen drive, supplied on 29th September, is the original that was allegedly given to the petitioner and to the deposing officer. However, this pen drive did not contain the four critical videos relied upon in the detention order. 2.The second pen drive, containing the four videos, was only supplied much later, on 23rd October, by the advisory board—28 days after the petitioner had requested access.”
At the conclusion of the day’s hearing, the Court listed the matter for Thursday at 2 p.m. and passed directions regarding the pen drive. The Court ordered that the pen drive in the detainee’s custody be retrieved by jail authorities in a sealed box in his presence and forwarded to the Court in a sealed box by the Superintendent of Jail. The Additional Advocate General of Rajasthan has been directed to ensure compliance within the stipulated time.
The case has once again brought the focus back to preventive detention laws, the safeguards under Article 22 of the Constitution, and the requirement to provide complete and accurate material to a detainee. The Supreme Court’s final decision in the matter is expected to have significant implications for the scope and judicial review of detention under the National Security Act.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sonam Wangchuk
