Sonam Wangchuk not there in the videos relied upon to detain him: Wife to Supreme Court
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on Monday told the Supreme Court that Ladakh-based climate activist Sonam Wangchuk cannot be seen in the videos relied upon by authorities as grounds to detain him [Gitanjali J Angmo & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.].
Sibal made the assertion before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale during the hearing of the habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife.
Wangchuk was arrested from Ladakh on September 26 and is currently under preventive detention in a jail in Jodhpur.
The arrest was made pursuant to the protests and violence that broke out in Ladakh over demands of statehood for the Union Territory.
His wife, Gitanjali Angmo, moved the Supreme Court in early October, saying his detention under the National Security Act (NSA) was illegal and meant to silence peaceful dissent. She said he has always followed Gandhian, non-violent methods.
During today's hearing, at the very outset, Sibal, appearing for Angmo, flagged a practical issue about the Union’s side being unavailable for some days. He said he had been informed that Solicitor General Tushar Mehta would not be able to address the Court till January 26 because of a family wedding.
The Court said that since this was a habeas corpus petition involving personal liberty, it would not delay the matter. The Bench allowed Sibal to continue and fixed the case for hearing tomorrow as well.
Sibal then began setting out what he described as four fundamental defects in the detention.
He said the most serious problem was that crucial material relied upon by the detaining authority had not been supplied to Wangchuk, making it impossible for him to make an effective legal representation against the detention.
He explained that four videos dated September 24, 2025, were relied upon in the detention order, but were never given to Wangchuk.
“So your right to make an effective representation got truncated because you were not given those videos?” the Court queried.
Sibal answered in the affirmative and said this struck at the heart of constitutional protection under Article 22.
He then referred to Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution which guarantee that a detenue must be informed of the grounds of detention and must be given the earliest opportunity to make a representation.
He also referred to Section 5A of the NSA, which allows detention to survive even if one of several grounds is found invalid.
Sibal said that in ordinary circumstances he would challenge Section 5A as unconstitutional because it allows the State to rely on “split grounds” of detention.
He argued that Section 5A cannot override the constitutional right to make an effective representation.
After this submission, the Court asked him directly whether he was contending that Section 5A did not apply to Wangchuk’s case.
Sibal said that it could not apply where the detenue had not even been supplied with the material relied upon.
He said that Section 5A, if at all, can operate only when all grounds and materials are properly served.
He explained that the detention order referred to a recommendation made by an authority, on the basis of which the formal grounds of detention were prepared. But that recommendation itself had never been given to Wangchuk.
According to Sibal, the so-called grounds of detention were nothing but a verbatim copy of that recommendation.
"The grounds are simply a copy paste of the recommendation. The exact words, the exact sentence, everything is the same," Sibal argued.
"So your contention is that there is no application of mind by the detaining authority?" the Court asked.
"Yes" replied Sibal.
The Senior Counsel then pointed out the time gap between the events relied upon and the detention order. He said many of the documents referred to in the grounds related to events from March 2024 onwards, whereas the detention order was passed on September 26, 2025. He referred specifically to a video of June 8, 2025, which the detaining authority had relied upon.
He said that according to the detention order, the real trigger was what allegedly happened on September 10, 11 and 24 last year. But the videos and materials relating to those dates were never supplied to him.
Instead, he said, the authorities relied on older material like the June 8 video or even something from May 25, 2025, where it was alleged that Wangchuk had incited people to engage in strikes and non-cooperation movements.
Sibal argued that if the June 8 video was really the basis of detention, then Wangchuk should have been detained on June 9 itself.
He also said that his speech where he spoke about non-violence was completely ignored by the authorities.
Pertinently, he said the videos of September 24 were actually recorded after the alleged violent incident and yet were being used against him. More importantly, he said, Wangchuk was not even present in those videos.
He explained that under preventive detention law, the material relied upon must have a proximate link with the detention order. The proximate link was supposed to be what happened on September 10, 11 and 24, but that material had not been supplied, Sibal stated.
Instead, the State was trying to rely on Section 5A to say that it did not matter.
Sibal argued that if irrelevant material is relied upon, the detention automatically becomes bad in law.
He also pointed out that an FIR was lodged on September 25 regarding violence but not in relation to Wangchuk’s speech. There had been no progress in that FIR even by January 2026, and several FIRs relied upon did not even name Wangchuk, Sibal argued.
The hearing is slated to continue tomorrow (January 13).
Sibal is expected to conclude his arguments tomorrow. Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj will argue on behalf of the Central government.