Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali J Angmo, on Thursday told the Supreme Court that four videos forming the basis of her husband’s detention were not shown to him, and only thumbnails on a pen drive were displayed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, argued before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale that not providing the videos violated Wangchuk’s right to effective representation before the advisory board and the government.
“It is now alleged by the State that the DIG came with a laptop and showed four videos. The laptop was provided to the detenue on October 5, 2025, but those four videos were not there,” Sibal said. He added that the law requires the government to supply documents to the detainee, not merely display them.
Another lawyer assisting Sibal noted that when the pen drive was inserted into the laptop, Wangchuk only saw the thumbnails, and the videos themselves were never played.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that a video exists showing the conversation between Wangchuk and the DIG. The bench said it would review all relevant video recordings, including a 40-minute interaction between the police and Wangchuk. The matter is now scheduled for hearing on February 23.
Earlier, the apex court had questioned the Centre about the transcripts of the videos, emphasizing that translations must be precise, especially in the age of artificial intelligence. Sibal had contended that some words attributed to Wangchuk were never spoken by him, prompting the court to request actual transcripts of his statements.
The case arises from a habeas corpus petition filed by Angmo, seeking a declaration that Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980 is illegal. The NSA allows detention of individuals for up to 12 months to prevent actions “prejudicial to the defence of India.” Angmo said that the violence in Leh on September 24 last year cannot be linked to Wangchuk, who condemned the incident on social media, calling it “the saddest day of his life” and a setback to Ladakh’s peaceful pursuit of development.
