Supreme Court Asks Centre If Sonam Wangchuk Had Opportunity To Watch Videos Cited In Detention Order

The Supreme Court today(February 12) asked the Union Government if there is any endorsement made by Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk that he has seen the four videos on which the detention order is primarily based. 

A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr Gitanjali Angmo, Wangchuk's wife, seeking to declare Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act, 1980, illegal.

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that Wangchuk is making an allegation before the highest Court of the country that he was not given the materials on which the detention order is based, when his own acknowledgement receipt is there that he had seen those four videos.

As per him, 23 videos have been relied on in the detention order. "There are 23 videos which has been relied in the detention order, and everything has been supplied to him and that is with acknowledgment...All the videos which have been referred in the annexure has been supplied in detail. Kindly go to the detention order..." 

However, the petitioner disputed this fact. It was pointed out by them that Wangchuk had merely endorsed that he had been supplied the material as per the index of the table of contents, and not that he had seen those videos. Adding to this, it was submitted that when the materials were supplied to Wangchuk, they did not contain those four videos, and he wrote various representations asking for the same.

Petitioner's counsel said: "It is our case that the pen drive which was supplied to us on the 29th [October] did not have those Annexure A. It is not the question whether a pen drive was supplied to us. We have agreed that the pen drive was to us. But the pen drive mischievously did not have those four videos under Annexure A, which when we found out, we repeatedly wrote to them. In fact, page 52 of the compilation, repeated letters by Mr Wangchuk saying...that is the issue raised of non-supply. We are not alleging the non-supply of other videos."

On this, Justice Kumar asked: "How did the detenue see those videos?"

Nataraj responded that the DIG had gone to meet him personally and had shown the four videos against him, after which he had endorsed them by way of acknowledgement. This whole exercise was videographed. Then a laptop was supplied to him to see those videos again.

Petitioner's counsel submitted that the laptop was supplied for the first time on October 5th. She contended that Wangchuk may have endorsed the contents of the material supplied to him during the videography, but that does not mean he has watched those videos. 

Justice Kumar said: "Nataraj, he only said he received documents as per the above index...but he does not say he has seen the contents of those videos."

When Nataraj reiterated that the contents of the video were shown to Wangchuk, the Court asked if the Centre could produce some endorsement in this regard.

"Then, in this event, this endorsement would have contained that I have seen those videos," Justice Kumar remarked. However, Nataraj responded that this is not required at all. 

Then, Justice Varale asked: "Whether such endorsement was obtained that videos are being shown to the the detenue and the detenue has seen the video? This endorsement only refers to that he has received documents in a pen drive. It is not disclosed in the endorsement that he had occasion to see the video[s]... If you have shown the video, you could have drawn a statement to that effect and obtained his signature."

"Anything to show that on 26.9.[25], it was shown to him?," Justice Kumar again asked. Nataraj responded that the video recording that Wangchuk was shown, the content of the document and the videos are 40 minutes long. 

On this, the petitioner raised how 21 videos could be shown to him in merely 40 minutes. Justice Kumar responded that perhaps specific timestamps were shown to him. She also raised the issue that Wangchuk had written letters asking for those videos be supplied to him.

"He wrote four-five letters," Justice Varale added.

Justice Kumar told Nataraj, "Mr Nataraj, assuming for a moment, say, we accept your contention, then when he gave this representation, you could have just denied it...Have you done it?... More particularly, when the matter was seized by this matter...This is 13 October, by which time we were hearing the matter. Let us give that video."

Materials are not meant to be kept in file, it must be given to him: Court

Nataraj had also argued that there is also a green sheet in which the Leh District Magistrate had taken cognisance of every aspect. This alone is sufficient to show the independent application of the mind. This was in response to the petitioner's argument that the recommendation of the SSP was copy-pasted by the detaining authority. 

Earlier, the Court had asked for the original records, which were supplied today. However, some of which were xerox copies, as Justice Kumar had orally said during the hearing. On perusing the records, Justice Kumar asked if the green sheet was a part of the detention order. When no reply was given, Justice Kumar orally remarked: "You might have taken cognisance. But the argument yourself was that it [the recommendations of the SSP] was forwarded to him[the Magistrate]. Whatever you have taken, whatever you have noted, you can't keep it in your file. It should be given to him."

Nataraj also clarified that he is no longer pressing the argument that Wangchuk was supposed to challenge the subsequent order of approval by the State Government and the Advisory Board. He said that there is a Supreme Court judgment which goes against the proposition of law he had argued.

Border areas are fragile, petitioner must rememeber his fundamental duty as well

Before concluding his arguments, Nataraj prayed that the Court give due importance to the fact that the violence erupted in a border-sensitive area.

"Finally, kindly see the situation in the border areas where agitations and violence are erupting. In such a situation, ultimately, it is the national interest that is the paramount consideration for everyone, that too for the force and every citizen. By ignoring all these aspects, by pointing out that yes, I have a fundamental right...the person who comes before the Court, he should be aware of his fundamental duties towards not only to every citizen but also towards the country."

The Court will hear arguments on rejoinder on Monday.

Latest update 

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 yesterday that the request couldn't be processed as the Centre can't make an exception.SG Mehta also submitted that Wangchuk has been examined 28 times by the doctor as per the Jail Manual.

It may be recalled that an application was moved by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal(for Angmo) that Wangchuk may be examined by a specialist doctor after he frequently complained of stomachache, possibly due to contaminated water. Pursuant to this, Wangchuk was reportedly taken to AIIMS Jodhpur for examination, and a report was submitted to the Court. Perusing the report, the Court had then orally urged the Centre to reconsider Wangchuk's detention.

After which, the hearing was adjourned, but Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj had orally informed the Court that no progress had been made on the Court's request. The bench then had orally responded that it is not the Centre's case disputing Wangchuk's health condition. But Nataraj maintained that Wangchuk is in perfectly good condition.

SG Mehta yesterday informed that Wangchuk may have developed some digestive issues, and he is getting treatment for that. 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. He had referred to the Indian Army personnel as "them" and wanted to create a 'them v us' separation.

Case Details: GITANJALI J. ANGMO v UNION OF INDIA AND ORS|W.P.(Crl.) No. 399/2025

The writ petition has been filed by Advocate on Record, Dr Sarvam Ritam Khare

Click Here To Read/Download Order