Supreme Court questions government's transcript of videos cited against Sonam Wangchuk

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Central government over the transcripts of videos cited against Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk in his detention order under the National Security Act (NSA).

A Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale was hearing the plea moved Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo against his detention.

The Court said it wants actual transcripts of Wangchuk's statements from the government after Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal submitted that some of the words attributed to the activist were never said by him.

The Court said,

"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."

In response, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj said,

"A department did it. We are not experts in it."

However, the Court said that in the age of Artificial Intelligence (AI), the precision should be 98 percent, at least.

Sibal said the detaining authority had relied upon something which did not even exist.

"Subjective satisfaction of something that doesn’t exist? Nowhere have I said you come up like GenZ etc and all this is given by the Solicitor General," Sibal said.

When the Court asked for actual transcripts from the government, Sibal said,

"This is not something which is a surprise to them. I had stated all this earlier. They never responded. Why should we give them another chance? We can rely on what they have given to your lordships."

On a lighter note, the Court referred to an Urdu couplet:

"In a lighter vein, there’s this couplet “humne wo bhi suna jo unhone kaha hi nahi [we even heard what they never said!] ”

In response, Sibal said,

"Yes. Aur jo hum keh rahe hai unhone suna hi nahi [And what we are saying, they didn't listen to at all]."

The Court then said,

"Hum sun rahe hai na [We are listening, aren't we?]

Sibal responded positively.

"That’s why we are here," he said.

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 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 last week. Today, Angmo's counsel made arguments in rejoinder.

Today's hearing

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, argued that the Central government had failed to respond his earlier submissions.

"The most important speech where he (Wangchuk) called off the Anshan and appealed for non violence was not provided to the detaining authority. That was the most proximate event. The speech was on 24th September and the detention was on 26th. In the padyatra, no violent activity was attributed. These facts have not been denied by the respondents," Sibal said.

Sibal added that many of the documents relied upon by the detaining authority were not related to the detinue. Out of the eight videos relied upon, four videos are more than one year old, he further said.

The senior counsel also said that the detaining authority had relied upon incorrect transcripts of the video.

"The authority has also relied upon non existent material. Therefore the subjective satisfaction of the authority is based on material that doesn’t exist," Sibal said.

Sibal urged the Court to consider Wangchuk's statements in the proper context.

"Your lordship will have to see the mindset. He (Wangchuk) says there was a promise made to us in the manifesto (of Statehood). And that has not been granted. And now 5 years have passed. We must do something about it. And what he does is anshan. Since 2022, has any speech of his incited any violence? We are not even dealing with a case where there is instigation to commit violence or public disorder."

The senior counsel reiterated his submission that the detaining authority had not applied his mind before sending Wangchuk to prison.

"Now coming to the copy paste thing. The four paragraphs he (ASG) says that are not copy paste but application of mind. Take it and juxtapose it with page 116. See para 5 of the detention order. I’ll show why it’s copy paste," he said.

Sibal also argued that Wangchuk's right to representation against the detention was violated as the content cited against him was not provided to him on time.

"I have the right to make a representation both to the advisory board and the State government. The laptop was given to me only on 5th October. The state order confirming the order was on 4th October. Therefore, my right to representation was violated," the senior counsel said.

The Court asked whether Wangchuk had raised the objection about non-supply of links to the videos when he was provided with the detention order.

"The solicitor said you have acknowledged that all the videos relied upon have been supplied to you," it added.

However, Sibal pointed out that such counter claim had not been made on record.

"Where is this written in the counter affidavit? Nowhere. This is only an oral argument. Showing a document is not enough. It should be given to me. Let’s assume the SG is right. He says the DIG sat with me and showed me the videos. It’s still a violation of Article 22(5)," he said.

After Sibal said copies of only four of the eight videos were actually provided to Wangchuk, the Court said the pen drive given to him be submitted in a sealed cover before next date of hearing.

"Mr. Sibal please ask your client to give the pen drive he has. The pen drive which is said to have been shown, ask your detenue to see that it is kept in a sealed box and given to the officials and the officials will give it to us. Let it be sealed by the detinue himself or in his presence and given to us," the Bench said.

The matter will be heard next on February 19.