This case cannot go on forever: Sonam Wangchuk's wife to Supreme Court in case against his preventive detention

Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo on Thursday objected to the Central government's request for more time to make submissions in the case filed by her against Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act (NSA)..This was after Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta said he would need some time to respond to the allegations that the transcripts of the videos or statements cited against Wangchuk by the detaining authority are wrong."There’s a video of 40 minutes. I have something to say on the contention that the translations are wrong," Mehta said.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, said the authorities failed to respond to her allegations in the counter affidavit and now cannot be given more time respond."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," Sibal said.However, the Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale listed the case for further hearing on February 23 to hear the SG..On February 16, the Court had questioned the Central government over the transcripts of videos cited against Wangchuk."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," the Court had said then..Wangchuk was detained under the NSA following protests in Leh in September 2025 over demands of statehood and Sixth Schedule status for the Union Territory of Ladakh. His wife then filed a Habeas Corpus petition seeking his release. During the pendency of the case, the Court had urged the Central government to review the decision to detain Wangchuk, considering his deteriorating health in the jail. However, the authorities decided against releasing detained Wangchuk on health grounds.The government concluded its arguments in the case on February 12. Today, Angmo's counsel concluded arguments in rejoinder. The matter is likely to be reserved for judgment next week..Today's hearing.During the last hearing, the Court had directed that the pendrive, containing the videos cited against him, given to Wangchuk be submitted in a sealed cover before next date of hearing. The pendrive was handed over to the Court today. It was Angmo's argument that copies of only four of the eight videos were actually provided to Wangchuk.Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, today submitted that the storage device will clarify whether those four videos are included or not. The Court also said it will go through it and then put questions to the counsel."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?," it said.In response, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj said there are excerpts from all videos and they may be about 17 minutes. At this, the Court asked about the consequences of choosing to cite only particular portions against Wangchuk"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," the Court said.Nataraj said he will answer the Court's query. Meanwhile, Sibal said Wangchuk was shown only the thumbnails of the videos stated to be played before him."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," the senior counsel said..Continuing his arguments on merits, Sibal that Wangchuk's exculpatory statements had not been taken into account by the detaining authority."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," the senior said.Sibal also argued that it was not sufficient to merely show him the videos cited against him."Showing the videos is not enough. They should have been given to me (Wangchuk)," he said..Follow Bar and Bench channel on WhatsAppDownload the Bar and Bench Mobile app for instant access to the latest legal news.