Today, On 19th February, The Supreme Court continued hearing the detention challenge of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk. Kapil Sibal argued, “Showing selective content is insufficient; all material must be supplied,” stressing authorities have a constitutional duty to provide complete relied-upon documents.
New Delhi: The Supreme Court of India continued the hearing on the challenge to the detention of Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk, who remains in Jodhpur following last year’s Ladakh protests.
The petition, filed by his wife, heard by Justices Aravind Kumar and P. B. Varale.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Wangchuk while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta appeared for the State.
During the hearing, the Court noted that the pen drive containing video evidence had been submitted in a sealed cover.
SG Mehta told the Court,
“In compliance with the previous order, the pen drive has been submitted in a sealed cover. It contains a 40-minute video. However, I must point out the translations relied upon are incorrect.”
Advocate Sibal argued on behalf of the petitioner, stating,
“The counter affidavit does not dispute our allegation. There is no response to the discrepancies we highlighted. Silence, in effect, amounts to admission. This process cannot continue indefinitely , they were given adequate opportunity.”
Referring to a couplet mentioned earlier, SG Mehta added,
“Humne wo suna jo unhone kaha hi nahi.”
He explained,
“The full version reads: ‘Mai chup raha toh aur galat fehmiyan badhi.'”
Justice Varale clarified that the couplet had not been invoked while addressing the merits.
SG Mehta responded,
“Perhaps Justice Kumar may not share the same interest but context matters; the couplet is incomplete otherwise.”
Justice Kumar briefly remarked,
“Ignorance is bliss.”
The Court recorded that the Ld. AAG Rajasthan had placed on record the sealed cover containing the pen drive, duly attested by two gazetted officers, pursuant to the order dated 16.2.2026.
Kapil Sibal began his rejoinder submission, noting,
“The pen drive will settle the controversy whether the four videos are included or not.”
The Court observed,
“We would prefer to examine the material ourselves. We shall review it and, if necessary, seek clarifications from both sides. How much of the video content forms part of the detention order?”
ASG K. M. Nataraj informed the Court,
“The detention order contains excerpts drawn from all videos cumulatively around 17 minutes.”
The Court questioned the legal impact of selective excerpts,
“If the detaining authority selects one sentence while omitting the preceding and succeeding portions, what would be the legal consequence?”
ASG Nataraj agreed to address the point.
Adv Sibal highlighted,
“Notably, the 40-minute video contains no audio. Only thumbnails were shown to us mere previews, not the substantive footage.”
When asked, he clarified that a thumbnail is “a preview image.”
ASG Nataraj said he would place the complete transcription before the Court.
Citing precedents, Adv Sibal submitted,
“The subjective satisfaction underlying a detention order remains amenable to judicial review. The video in which I clearly state my opposition to violence has not been considered. That is an exculpatory factor.”
He further argued,
“The authorities rely on an incident from June yet no steps were taken then. By September, when the fast (Anshan) was called off, that became the so-called ‘live and proximate’ event. Ironically, my rejection of violence is now being turned into the very basis for detention alleging that I promote violence. These circumstances squarely raise issues fit for judicial review.”
Adv Sibal also cited Khauja Bilal Ahmed v State of Telangana, noting:
- “The detaining authority’s satisfaction must rest on relevant material”
- “There must be a live link to the detention decision”
- “Grounds cannot be irrelevant or invalid”
- “The material must not be stale”
He further added,
“Past FIRs or incidents must demonstrate a direct nexus to the individual. Absent that connection, the detention order is liable to be set aside.”
Adv Sibal emphasized procedural lapses, submitting,
“We were unaware that the State Government confirmed the detention order on 4 October. We received the documents only on 5 October, leaving us unable to make a representation.”
He clarified,
“Two distinct rights exist representation before the Advisory Board and before the Appropriate Government. The latter constitutional right stood effectively defeated.”
Highlighting delays, Sibal told the Court,
“Kindly see the timeline: order dated 4 October, laptop provided on 5 October. The delay itself resulted in a constitutional violation. It is repeatedly claimed that multiple representations were made. However, the four videos forming Annexure A were never supplied. The State now contends that a DIG showed the videos on a laptop. Even assuming that, mere viewing does not satisfy legal requirements.”
When asked by Justice Kumar about the pen drive, Sibal replied,
“Yes, on 7 October. The four videos were not there. If they had existed and were deleted, that would be demonstrable. The law requires furnishing material not simply displaying it. Authorities bear a constitutional obligation to supply documents; the detenue need not request them.”
He further submitted,
“Supply of grounds is complete only when all relied-upon materials are provided. Showing selective content is insufficient. The detention order relies on false and distorted statements, including allegations of provoking public unrest entirely incorrect.”
Justice Varale noted that these submissions had already been made. Adv Sibal argued,
“It is suggested that peace followed detention. Factually, curfew continues in Ladakh even today. If reliance is placed on an FIR, it must establish a direct nexus to me. Absent that link, the detention order cannot stand. Showing videos is not enough. They must be furnished.”
The Court concluded the hearing for the day after Sibal completed his rejoinder, noting humorously,
“Your reply exceeded your usual responses by seven minutes and thirty-six seconds. Perhaps I’ve developed the habit of closely tracking time.”
Sibal replied,
“Understood, My Lord. I’ll be mindful next time.”
The Court allowed the Solicitor General ten minutes for submissions on the next date but warned against repetition.
Counsel Bahuli Sharma, representing Wangchuk, clarified,
“The pen drive was inserted into the laptop in Mr. Wangchuk’s presence. Only thumbnails were visible the videos were not played. None of the thumbnails were clicked.”
When the Court asked whether this was communicated to the DIG, Sibal stated,
“That is not the responsibility of the detinue.”
ASG Nataraj added that the video was shown, a conversation took place, and the interaction was recorded, with Wangchuk responding affirmatively when asked if everything was correct.
The Court recorded that an additional pen drive, containing recordings of proceedings dated 29.9.2025, had been placed on record.
The matter is now listed for further hearing on Monday, February 23, 2026, at 2 PM.
Earlier, Gitanjali Angmo, the wife of activist Sonam Wangchuk, has appealed to the Supreme Court against her husband’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA) by the Ladakh administration.
Wangchuk was detained shortly after violence erupted in Leh, where protestors advocating for statehood for Ladakh clashed with police. He has been a leading voice in the demand for statehood and the extension of the Sixth Schedule to the region.
Angmo has previously criticized the government regarding her husband’s detention, claiming “he is being portrayed as anti-national in a witch-hunt.”
The Ladakh Police apprehended activist Sonam Wangchuk and invoked the stringent National Security Act (NSA) just two days after the Union Territory experienced some of its worst violence in decades.
This unrest was triggered by protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule protections, which escalated into violent clashes.
Earlier, the Union home ministry revoked the license of his NGO under the Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010, citing alleged violations. The MHA linked the mob violence and arson that occurred to “provocative” speeches made by Wangchuk, who referenced Arab Spring-style protests and the Gen Z movements in Nepal.
Wangchuk, however, contended that the government is fabricating a case to imprison him.
The alleged violations include depositing locally generated funds into SECMOL’s FCRA account, diverting funds for non-permissible activities such as studying the nation’s sovereignty, and failing to deposit foreign funds into the designated FCRA account.
The protests in Ladakh resulted in four fatalities and over 80 injuries, including among police personnel, on Wednesday. A curfew was imposed in Leh, vehicles were set on fire, and security forces resorted to firing tear gas and live rounds to disperse the crowds.
Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who was on a hunger strike advocating for statehood and constitutional protections, terminated his fast as tensions escalated after two fellow hunger strikers collapsed and required hospitalization.
This turmoil occurred just days before scheduled talks between the Centre and the Leh Apex Body on October 6, which would be the first in four months. Sources from the Centre indicated that the government wanted Wangchuk excluded from the discussions, viewing him as an impediment.
The Sixth Schedule of the Indian Constitution outlines the governance of tribal areas in the states of Assam, Meghalaya, Tripura, and Mizoram. It empowers local communities to play a significant role in the administration of these regions. The youth in Ladakh are advocating for their region to be governed under the protections of the Sixth Schedule.
According to this Schedule, an autonomous district can be subdivided by the governor if there are multiple Scheduled Tribes present. Each autonomous district is entitled to a District Council with no more than 30 members.
The governor is allowed to nominate up to four members, while the remaining members are elected through adult suffrage.
Furthermore, each autonomous region will have its own Regional Council.
Under the Sixth Schedule, in an autonomous district with Regional Councils, the District Council has powers limited to those delegated by the Regional Council, alongside the powers granted by the Schedule for specific areas.
The Schedule also details the legislative powers of the District Councils and Regional Councils regarding the administration of justice in these autonomous regions.
It specifies the delegation of powers under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to the Regional and District Councils, as well as certain courts and officers for the adjudication of specific suits, cases, and offenses.
The Governor can dissolve a district or regional council based on recommendations from a Commission.
Case Title : Dr Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and others, Diary No. 56964/2025
Read Live Coverage
Click Here to Read More Reports On Sonam Wangchuk