Gitanjali J Angmo urged the Supreme Court to stop delays in the hearing against Sonam Wangchuk’s preventive detention under the NSA. The Court will examine disputed video transcripts before reserving judgment next week.
The Supreme Court on Thursday continued hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Gitanjali J Angmo, wife of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA). During the hearing, Angmo objected to the Central government’s request for more time to respond to allegations regarding incorrect video transcripts relied upon for Wangchuk’s detention.
Appearing for the Centre, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought additional time to address the contention that the translations and transcripts of Wangchuk’s speeches were inaccurate. He told the Court,
“There’s a video of 40 minutes. I have something to say on the contention that the translations are wrong,”
indicating that the government wished to clarify its stand.
However, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, strongly opposed the request. He argued that the government had already filed its counter affidavit and had failed to respond to the specific allegations about discrepancies in the transcripts.
Sibal submitted,
“The counter affidavit filed by them doesn’t deny it. There’s no response to it. We made an allegation, the counter affidavit doesn’t respond to it. Admits it. We’ve set out the difference in the translations. There is no response to it. This can’t go on forever. There was an opportunity given to them,”
asserting that the Centre should not be granted further time at this stage.
The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale nevertheless decided to list the matter for further hearing on February 23 to allow the Solicitor General to respond. The case is likely to be reserved for judgment next week after final submissions.
Earlier, on February 16, the Court had raised serious concerns regarding the transcripts of videos cited in the detention order. The Bench had observed inconsistencies between the speeches and their recorded transcripts.
The Court had then remarked,
“The tabular list you have filed, some of these things don’t even find a place in the detention order. There should be at least the correct transcript of what he (Wangchuk) says! There should not be a variance. If the speech is of 3 minutes and your transcription goes on for 7-8 minutes, there is certainly malice in that,”
indicating possible discrepancies that could affect the legality of the detention.
Sonam Wangchuk was detained under the NSA following protests in Leh in September 2025. The protests were related to demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule status for the Union Territory of Ladakh. Challenging the detention, his wife filed a habeas corpus petition seeking his immediate release.
During the pendency of the petition, the Supreme Court had urged the Central government to reconsider its decision in view of Wangchuk’s deteriorating health condition in jail. However, the authorities decided not to release him on health grounds. The government concluded its main arguments on February 12, and Angmo’s counsel concluded arguments in rejoinder during the present hearing.
Today’s hearing also focused on the pendrive containing the videos relied upon by the detaining authority. In the previous hearing, the Court had directed that the pendrive be submitted in a sealed cover. The device was handed over to the Court today.
Sibal argued that Wangchuk was provided copies of only four out of eight videos cited against him. He submitted that the contents of the storage device would clarify whether those four videos were actually included.
The Bench stated that it would examine the pendrive itself before raising further queries. The Court observed,
“We would like to see for ourselves. We will go through that and then if there is any doubt we will put it to both the parties. How many minutes of videos is there in the detention order?,”
seeking clarity on the exact duration and nature of the video evidence relied upon.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj responded that excerpts from all videos were relied upon and that the total duration may be around 17 minutes. The Court then questioned the legal consequences of selectively relying on particular portions of a speech.
The Bench asked,
“If the detaining authority has picked up one sentence and left out the next and the previous sentence, what will be the consequence of that,”
indicating concern over possible selective interpretation.
Nataraj stated that he would address the Court’s query. Meanwhile, Sibal alleged that Wangchuk was not properly shown the video content. He submitted,
“In the 40-minute video, there is no audio. Only the thumbnails were shown to us. We were only shown the thumbnails of the videos uploaded on the pen drive.”
suggesting that full and meaningful access to the material was not provided.
Continuing his arguments on merits, Sibal contended that exculpatory statements made by Wangchuk were ignored by the detaining authority. He argued,
“The video where I [Wancghuk] said I don’t like violence, it’s not considered at all. That’s an exonerating circumstance. They rely on something that happened in June. No action taken. In September when I break the anshan, [it] became the live and proximate thing. So my shunning violence becomes the reason why I am detained,”
alleging that the authority selectively relied on material that suited its case while ignoring statements distancing him from violence.
Sibal further argued that merely showing the videos during the detention process was not sufficient compliance with legal requirements.
He stated,
“Showing the videos is not enough. They should have been given to me (Wangchuk),”
emphasizing that proper supply of documents and materials is a fundamental safeguard under preventive detention law.
The Supreme Court will now examine the contents of the pendrive and hear further submissions from the government before reserving its judgment.
The outcome of the case will determine whether Wangchuk’s detention under the NSA withstands judicial scrutiny, particularly on the grounds of procedural fairness, accuracy of transcripts, and consideration of exculpatory material.
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sonam Wangchuk
