Sonam Wangchuk Was Only Shown Thumbnails Of Folders, Never Got Chance To Watch Videos : Sibal Tells Supreme Court

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal argued in the Supreme Court today that Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk was only shown the thumbnail of the folders containing the materials on which his detention is based. 

It may be recalled that the Union Government had submitted that Wangchuk is lying to the Court that he has not been furnished the materials on which the detention is based, particularly four videos containing his alleged inciteful speeches. It was told that the DIG had gone to meet Wangchuk and shown him the contents of the detention order and the materials relied upon by the detaining authority, and this whole exercise was videographed. 

Responding to this, Sibal pointed out that this is the first time the other side has argued that there is a video of the DIG furnishing the materials to Wangchuk. Secondly, he denied that Wangchuk was shown the contents of those videos. In arguendo, he stated that the law requires that those materials be supplied to him. Showing him the contents is not enough. 

Sibal said: "On the 40-minute video, we just tell your lordship what it is. Though the video was shown, there is no audio in it. There is no audio to the contents of the video...I am told that only the thumbnails were shown to us. We were shown the thumbnails of the videos uploaded on the pen drive."

Another counsel for the petitioner explained to the Court: "Mylordship, Mr Wangchuk met with the legal counsel and explained exactly what had happened. He said that on 29th September, the DIG came with the laptop, and inserted the pendrive in the laptop, and when you insert the pendrive in the laptop, the folders can be seen as thumbnails. That is all he got to see, and he said that the 40 minutes videography would be evidence of that."

Justice Kumar asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj if he detentue had been shown the videos. He also asked the petitioner if this argument, which they are raising right now, was raised before the DIG. To this, Sibal responded: "Let me answer that. That is not the job of the detenue. I don't have to ask."

Contrary to this, ASG Nataraj said that the conversation of the DIG with the detenue will clarify everything.

Justice Kumar asked ASG if Wangchuk had responded after seeing those four videos. He asked if the videography would also show that those four videos were played. "Video (of the interaction between the DIG and Wangchuk) which is available in the pendrive, reflected on the screen of the laptop, being shown to the detenue ?" Justice Kumar asked.

Initially, ASG Nataraj said yes, but then he added: "No, no. They(DIG and Wangchuk) are sitting side by side, and only the front it was clicked, and the conversation was recorded, and there he was informed..."

Sibal also argued that they were not aware that the order of the Advisory Board was confirmed by the State Government on October 4th. He explained that Wangchuk was given grounds of detention on September 29 in a pendrive, and he was given a laptop on October 5th. Subsequently, he realised that the detaining authority relied upon four videos which were not on the pendrive. Wangchuk wrote several representations, and to date, he has not been furnished with those four videos. As a consequence, his right to effective representative before the State Government has been violated.

Sibal also referred to Ameena Begum V. The State of Telangana & Ors(2023), and Khaja Bilal Ahmed v State of Telangana(2019) to argue that the subjective satisfaction of the detaining authority can be set aside of the detention order is based on irrelevant material having no nexus to the actions of the detenue.  

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo seeking to declare the preventive detention of her husband and Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk as illegal. Wangchuk was detained under the National Security Act, 1980, on September 26, 2025, after the Ladakh protest for statehood turned violent. He was subsequently moved to Jodhpur Central Jail.

The Court was today handed over the pendrive of videography of the DIG interacting with Wangchuk September 29th, and also the pendrive(allegedly containing the materials referred to in the detention order) furnished to Wangchuk. 

During the last hearing, the Court orally questioned the accuracy of the translation and asked why the translation of Wangchuk's speeches is about 10 minutes when the speech itself is for 3-4 minutes.

Justice Kumar orally stated that in the era of artificial intelligence, the accuracy is about 98% in translation. It also remarked that what is contained in the detention order nowhere finds mention in the translation given by the Union. This was said in the context of Sibal arguing that the detention order is based on non-existent materials, as Wangchuk has never made the statements that find mention in the order.

Today, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that he has something "substantial" to say in response to the allegation that the correct translation was not provided to the Court. Sibal objected, arguing that ample opportunity was given, but they did not respond in the counteraffidavit and if the Union continues to argue like this, this (the hearing) will never end.

Mehta responded that he will rely on the translation provided by the detenue. Arguments will continue on Monday.

What has happened so far?

The Court had recently urged the Centre to review the detention in view of Wangchuk's reported deteriorating health. However, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed last week that Wangchuk cannot be released on medical grounds and that his health was fine.

Earlier, SG Mehta had argued that Wangchuk wanted to instigate a "riot-like" situation in a place which shares a border with volatile countries and has its own regional sensitivity. He had argued that Wangchuk instigated a Nepal/Bangladesh-like Gen-Z movement. The SG highlighted that the detenu had referred to the Indian Army personnel as "them" and wanted to create a 'them v us' separation.

Mehta reiterated that the safeguards provided under the NSA have been scrupulously followed. The Court has to only see if there are sufficient materials, and it does not have to go into the sufficiency of them. While reading Section 8(2) of the NSA, he said that the detaining authority can claim immunity from disclosing facts that are considered to be against the public interest.

Whereas, Nataraj maintained that all grounds in the detention order are independent of one another, and if one of them does not survive, the detention order would be deemed to be based on the other surviving grounds. He also had submitted that the object of the NSA is to prevent and not to punish, and therefore, there is no necessity that violence has occurred. The test is whether Wangchuk's acts have the potential to affect the tempo of the community.

Nataraj referred to one of Wangchuk's speeches and argued that he instigated the youth to abandon a non-violent form of protest. However, the Court said the Centre is trying to "read too much into it[Wangchuk's speeches]" as he had in fact expressed his "worry" that youth is departing from such a Gandhian form of protests. The Court has repeatedly asked the Centre how all these speeches and interviews have a nexus with September 24, when the violence allegedly occurred.

The petitioners have maintained that there has been no application of mind while issuing the detention order, which is based on irrelevant material, including stale FIRs. It has also been submitted that his speeches have been deliberately read out of context, whereas there is no single instance where he instigated violence. In fact, when the violence occurred, he broke his hunger strike and had appealed for peace. The detaining authority copy pasted the recommendations of the SSP.