Sonam Wangchuk’s wife told the Supreme Court that his speech clearly appealed for peace and was meant to stop violence, not provoke it. She also alleged that key videos and full grounds of detention were not provided, violating constitutional safeguards.
Jailed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, on Thursday told the Supreme Court of India that her husband never encouraged violence and that his words are being twisted to wrongly project him as a criminal. She said the intention behind Wangchuk’s speech was only to stop violence and calm the situation in Ladakh.
Angmo also informed the top court that Wangchuk was not given the “complete grounds” of his detention and was denied a proper chance to make a representation before the concerned authority against his detention. The hearing in the case could not be concluded and will now continue on January 12.
Sonam Wangchuk was detained under the strict National Security Act (NSA) on September 26, 2025. This was two days after violent protests broke out in Ladakh over demands for statehood and inclusion under the Sixth Schedule.
The protests led to the death of four people and left around 90 others injured. The government has accused Wangchuk of provoking the violence.
The NSA allows the Centre and state governments to detain a person to prevent acts considered “prejudicial to the defence of India”. A person can be detained for up to 12 months under the law, though the detention can be withdrawn earlier.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale that Wangchuk was detained by the administration to stop him from allegedly indulging in activities said to be prejudicial in nature.
During the hearing, Sibal played a video of Wangchuk’s speech in court. He explained that the speech was made when Wangchuk broke his hunger strike and clearly showed his appeal for peace.
“I said I cannot accept this violence, and we should stop this violence, and I am appealing to you to stop this violence. That is the video I wanted to play to your lordship. You might remember that Gandhiji did the same when there was violence after the Chauri Chaura incident,”
the senior advocate said, while arguing that facts are being twisted to label Wangchuk as a “criminal”.
Sibal further told the court,
“The tenor of the speech is not in any sense threatening the security of the state or that I will continue such activities or to propagate violence, but to quell it.”
He submitted that this crucial video, though available with the administration, was not placed before the detaining authority. According to Sibal, this was done deliberately so that the detention order could be passed without the authority knowing what actually happened on September 24, 2025.
Sibal told the bench that a pen drive containing documents was supplied to Wangchuk on September 29, 2025, but it did not include the four videos relied upon by the authorities.
He alleged,
“Approximate causes that led to the detention order on September 26, 2025, were four videos relied upon by the detaining authorities. The videos were dated September 10, September 11, and two videos dated September 24. However, while the grounds of detention were supplied on September 29, the four videos were not furnished to the detainee,”
He also argued that the grounds of detention were supplied to Wangchuk after an unlawful delay of 28 days, which amounts to a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Article 22 of the Constitution provides protection to citizens against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Sibal stressed that the law is clear that if the grounds of detention are not supplied to the detainee, the detention itself stands “vitiated”. He referred to settled legal principles on preventive detention and the requirement of supplying all relied-upon material.
According to him, a detainee has the right to receive the grounds of detention along with all documents referred to by the authorities. Any delay or failure in supplying these materials results in denial of the right to make an effective representation against detention.
Sibal challenged the reply filed by the Leh administration and repeated that the pen drive given on September 29, 2025, did not contain the four videos.
Referring to one of Wangchuk’s letters dated October 21, 2025, Sibal told the court that only screenshots were provided and no actual video clips were given along with the pen drive.
Earlier, the Leh District Magistrate had informed the Supreme Court that Wangchuk was involved in activities prejudicial to the security of the state, public order and essential services, which led to his detention under the NSA.
In an affidavit filed before the apex court, the Leh District Magistrate denied allegations of illegal detention or improper treatment. It was claimed that the grounds of detention and supporting material were duly communicated to Wangchuk.
ALSO READ: BREAKING: Supreme Court to Hear Challenge Against Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention on Jan 7
In her petition, Angmo has stated that the violence in Leh on September 24 cannot be linked to Wangchuk’s actions or statements in any manner.
She also pointed out that Wangchuk publicly condemned the violence through his social media accounts and clearly said that violence would result in the failure of Ladakh’s peaceful struggle and “tapasya” of the last five years. She added that Wangchuk described the day of the violence as the saddest day of his life.
Click Here to Read More Reports On IRCTC Scam Case
