Sonam Wangchuk's Speech Appealing For Peace Suppressed From Detaining Authority : Sibal Tells Supreme Court; Plays Video Of Speech

The Supreme Court on Thursday heard in detail the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr. Gitanjali Angmo challenging the detention of her husband and Ladakh-based social activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, 1980, following recent protests in Ladakh that allegedly turned violent.A Bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna Varale heard the matter for the entire second half of the day. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the petitioner.Sibal submitted that the detention order dated September 26, 2025, was founded primarily on four videos relied upon by the detaining authority. According to him, the videos were dated September 10, September 11, and two videos dated September 24. However, while the grounds of detention were supplied on September 29, the four videos were not furnished to the detenue.He argued that the law is well settled that if the grounds of detention are supplied but the documents relied upon in those grounds are not, it would amount to a violation of Article 22 of the Constitution. Though the Union claims that the materials were supplied, Sibal contended that there was no demonstration or proof of the same.Sibal further submitted that the grounds of detention were supplied to Wangchuk after a flagrant delay of 28 days, in clear violation of the statutory timeline. He said that on September 29, Wangchuk was provided only with the detention order and incomplete grounds, as the four videos forming the most proximate basis of the detention were not supplied on that date.Referring to the Union's reply, Sibal stated that what was eventually given were merely links to the videos. He added that although a laptop was provided on October 5, it did not cure the defect since the pen drive supplied on September 29 did not contain the four videos in question.Sibal also informed the Court that Wangchuk, through several letters from custody, had repeatedly pointed out that the four videos were missing and had sought copies of the same, but they were never furnished. He recounted that Wangchuk's wife was told she would be given copies of those letters, but despite waiting for over an hour and even missing her flight, the documents were not provided.Emphasising the legal position, Sibal submitted that if documents relied upon in the grounds of detention are not supplied, the detention order stands vitiated. He told the Bench that this principle has been consistently upheld by the Supreme Court in several judgments.In support, Sibal cited the decision in Ahmed v. Union of India, where the Court held that non-supply of a relied-upon bail application violated the detenue's right to make an effective representation. He reiterated that failure or delay in furnishing the grounds of detention along with the documents referred to therein amounts to a denial of the constitutional safeguard guaranteed to a detenue.Sibal cited another line of precedent to submit that it is irrelevant whether the detenue already knew the contents of the documents relied upon but not furnished. He further relied on judgments holding that it is equally irrelevant whether the detenue specifically demanded those documents, as it is the constitutional obligation of the detaining authority to supply all material relied upon in the grounds of detention.Inviting the Bench's attention to Khudiram Das, Sibal submitted that it is the bounden duty of the Court to satisfy itself that all safeguards provided by law have been scrupulously observed and that a person is not deprived of personal liberty except in strict compliance with constitutional and statutory requirements. He stressed that since the detaining authority relied on four specific videos, those videos necessarily had to be supplied to the detenue.Sibal emphasised that the right to make an effective representation under Article 22 is not an empty formality. The detenue, he argued, must be given sufficient time after supply of documents to logically examine and analyse them before deciding the nature of the representation to be made. There must therefore be a meaningful timeline between the supply of documents and the meeting of the Advisory Board.“If you say you will supply the documents just one day before the Advisory Board, you are violating the very law,” Sibal submitted, adding that the constitutional guarantee requires adequate time and mental space for the detenue to respond.Taking the Court through the detention order, Sibal pointed out that even the recommendation forming the basis of the detention decision was not supplied to the detenue. He then addressed the substantive allegation that Wangchuk's conduct affected public order and essential services, which formed the foundation of the preventive detention.Narrating the factual background, Sibal said that Wangchuk went on a hunger strike on September 11. On the fifteenth day of the hunger strike, incidents of violence occurred, which deeply disturbed him. Breaking his hunger strike, Wangchuk made a ...

Sonam Wangchuk's Speech Appealing For Peace Suppressed From Detaining Authority : Sibal Tells Supreme Court; Plays Video Of Speech

Amisha Shrivastava

The detention order passed under the National Security Act is vitated by malice, Kapil Sibal argued.

Tags