New Delhi: Jailed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk‘s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, told the Supreme Court Thursday that the tenor of her husband’s speech was not to propagate violence, but to quell it, and facts are being manipulated to portray him as a criminal.
Angmo also told the top court that Wangchuk was not provided with the “complete grounds” of his detention and was not given a proper opportunity to make a representation to the authority concerned against detention.
Hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and will continue January 12.
Wangchuk was detained under the stringent National Security Act (NSA) September 26, 2025, two days after violent protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union territory. The government has accused him of inciting the violence.
The NSA empowers the Centre and states to detain individuals to prevent them from acting in a manner “prejudicial to the defence of India”. The maximum detention period is 12 months, though it can be revoked 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 prevent him from indulging in the prejudicial activities.
Playing a video of Wangchuk’s speech in the top court, Sibal said the climate activist made a speech while breaking his hunger strike.
“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, adding that facts were being manipulated to show that Wangchuk is a “criminal”.
“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,” Sibal said.
The senior lawyer stated that the vital video, which is available to the administration, was not placed before the detaining authority with the intent to ensure that the order of detention is passed by keeping him oblivious of what had really happened September 24, 2025.
Sibal told the court that the pen drive containing all documents except the four videos was supplied September 29, 2025.
“Approximate causes that led to the detention order 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 September 29, the four videos were not furnished to the detainee,” he alleged.
Sibal submitted that the grounds of detention were only supplied to Wangchuk after a flagrant delay of 28 days, which is a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution.
Article 22 protects against arbitrary arrest and detention.
Emphasising that the law mandates that if the grounds of detention are not supplied to the detenu, the detention order is “vitiated”, Sibal referred to the laws on detention and the supply of grounds.
The detainee has the right to be furnished with the grounds of detention along with the documents so referred. If there is a failure or delay in furnishing, it would amount to a denial of the right to make an effective representation.
Sibal contested the Leh administration’s reply to Angmo’s petition and argued that the pen drive containing all documents except the four videos was supplied September 29, 2025.
Referring to one of Wangchuk’s letters dated October 21, 2025, Sibal said only screenshots and no videos were supplied to him along with the pen drive.
Leh District Magistrate had earlier told the apex court that Wangchuk indulged in activities prejudicial to the security of the state, maintenance of public order and essential services, which led to his detention under the National Security Act.
In an affidavit filed before the top court, the Leh district magistrate had denied that Wangchuk had been detained illegally or was being treated improperly under detention, and submitted that the grounds of detention, along with the material, were communicated to him.
Angmo, in her plea, had said the unfortunate events of violence in Leh cannot be attributed to the actions or statements of Wangchuk in any manner.
Wangchuk himself condemned the violence through his social media handles and categorically stated that violence would lead to the failure of Ladakh’s “tapasya” and peaceful pursuit of five years, Angmo said, adding that it was the saddest day of his life.
PTI
