Supreme Court Seeks Original Videos in Sonam Wangchuk NSA Case—Questions Accuracy of Government Transcripts

Key Points

The Supreme Court, on 16 February 2026, questioned the accuracy of transcripts submitted by the Central government of speeches delivered by climate activist Sonam Wangchuk in Ladakh prior to the September 2025 violence. The observation was made amidst ongoing hearings challenging Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA). The court also directed the Jodhpur Jail Superintendent to produce in a sealed cover the pen drive given to Wangchuk on 29 September 2025, as the petitioner’s counsel alleged procedural lapses.

The case, based on a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo, is being heard by a Bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale. Wangchuk was detained by the Leh District Magistrate on 26 September 2025, two days after protests in Leh over demands for Statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh turned violent, leaving four people dead and several injured. The recent direction and observation come after the Centre concluded its arguments.

Bench Questions Accuracy of Transcripts

The hearing also focused on the authenticity and accuracy of transcripts submitted by the Centre to justify the detention.

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, argued that certain statements attributed to Wangchuk in the detention order were never made by him and that the detaining authority relied on incorrect transcriptions. He described the case as “a very unique detention order” based on material that “does not exist.”

Justice Kumar asked whether the translations relied upon by the Centre found place in the detention order. “If this is the basis on which you formed your opinion for detaining him, it should find a place,” the Bench observed.

Justice Varale specifically questioned the translation process, remarking that there must be a correct transcript of what Wangchuk actually stated. He cautioned that if a three-minute speech was translated into a version running seven to ten minutes, it would indicate a significant variance. “There should not be any malice,” he orally remarked, stressing that true translation was essential.

At one stage, the Bench noted that “we are in the era of Artificial Intelligence,” adding that translation precision should be at least 98 per cent.

When the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, stated that transcripts were prepared by a separate department and that “we are not experts,” the Court insisted on being provided with the actual transcripts of the speeches relied upon in the detention order.

See Also: ‘Grounds for Detention Void’: Gitanjali Angmo Files Petition in SC Against NSA Charge on Sonam Wangchuk for Ladakh Violence

Court Orders Sealed Production of Pen Drive

Sibal submitted that four videos of Wangchuk’s speeches cited in the detention order were not present in the pen drive handed over to him in custody on 29 September 2025. He argued that non-supply of the relied-upon material vitiated the detention order.

Recording the submission, the Court ordered that the pen drive currently in Wangchuk’s custody be obtained by jail authorities in a box, sealed in his presence, and forwarded to the Court. The Additional Advocate General for Rajasthan was directed to ensure compliance.

The issue arose after the ASG had earlier told the Court that Wangchuk was shown all the videos and contents forming the basis of the detention order and that the process was videographed. The ASG had accused Wangchuk of misleading the Court.

However, the Bench had noted in a previous hearing that Wangchuk had not endorsed having had an opportunity to actually watch the videos relied upon in the detention order.

Sibal clarified that while the grounds of detention were supplied, the four specific videos were not included in the pen drive. He added that Wangchuk had made repeated representations seeking those videos. Even if the government’s claim that the videos were shown was accepted, Sibal argued, they were required to be formally supplied as part of procedural safeguards.

See Also: “Invitation to Indulge in a Kind of Civil War”: Centre Defends Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention Saying He Wanted to Replicate Arab Spring-Like Protests in Ladakh

Centre Defends Detention Under NSA

The Centre has maintained that Wangchuk’s detention was preventive and necessary under the NSA. Solicitor General Tushar Mehta and ASG Nataraj submitted in earlier hearings that the safeguards under the Act were scrupulously followed.

The Centre argued that Wangchuk was the “chief provocateur” of the violence in Leh on 24 September 2025 and that after his detention, the agitation and violence came under control. According to government submissions, the detention prevented further escalation in a sensitive border region.

The law officers emphasised that under the NSA, the Court’s role is limited to examining whether sufficient material exists, not to assess the sufficiency of that material. They also cited Section 8(2) of the NSA, which allows the detaining authority to withhold disclosure of facts considered against public interest.

The government further submitted that Wangchuk referred to Nepal, Bangladesh and Arab Spring in his speeches and allegedly instigated youth to abandon non-violent protest methods. However, the Bench had earlier remarked that the Centre appeared to be “reading too much” into his speeches, noting that Wangchuk had expressed concern about departing from a Gandhian path.

In response to submissions seeking release on medical grounds, the Centre said Wangchuk was medically examined 24 times during his detention and was “fit, hale and hearty.” The Solicitor General described the health plea as a “manufactured and synthetic facade.”

The matter has been listed for further hearing on Thursday, 19 February 2026.

[DS]

Suggested Reading: