On February 12, the Supreme Court asked the Union Government whether Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk had actually watched the four videos relied upon in his detention order under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA).
A Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice P.B. Varale heard the habeas corpus petition filed by Dr. Gitanjali J. Angmo, Wangchuk’s wife. The petition challenges the legality of his preventive detention.
Dispute Over Supply of Videos
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj submitted that authorities supplied all materials relied upon in the detention order. He stated that the order refers to 23 videos and that Wangchuk acknowledged receiving them.
According to Nataraj, Wangchuk cannot now claim that the materials were not supplied. He asserted that the annexures, including the video content, were furnished in detail.
The petitioner disputed this version. Counsel argued that Wangchuk merely endorsed receipt of materials as per the index. He did not confirm that he had watched the four videos mentioned in Annexure A.
Counsel submitted that although a pen drive was supplied on October 29, it did not contain the four Annexure A videos. Wangchuk allegedly wrote repeated representations seeking those videos, including letters reflected at page 52 of the compilation.
Justice Aravind Kumar asked how the detenue could have viewed the videos. Nataraj replied that a Deputy Inspector General (DIG) personally met Wangchuk and showed him the four videos during a videographed interaction. Authorities later supplied a laptop for further viewing.
Petitioner’s counsel contended that authorities supplied the laptop only on October 5. She argued that acknowledgment during videography does not prove that Wangchuk watched the videos.
Justice Kumar observed that the endorsement only confirms receipt of documents as per the index. It does not state that Wangchuk viewed the videos. Justice Varale similarly noted that the acknowledgment refers only to receipt of documents in a pen drive.
The Bench repeatedly asked whether any material shows that authorities displayed the videos to Wangchuk on September 26, 2025. Nataraj said the videographed interaction lasted about 40 minutes. The petitioner questioned whether 21 videos could have been shown within that duration. Justice Kumar suggested that specific timestamps may have been displayed.
The Court also noted that when Wangchuk sent representations seeking the videos, authorities could have clarified the position. Justice Varale observed that Wangchuk wrote four to five letters on the issue. Justice Kumar remarked that authorities cannot keep materials relied upon in a detention order in their files; they must supply them to the detenue.
Alleged Non-Application of Mind and “Green Sheet”
Nataraj relied on a “green sheet” to show that the Leh District Magistrate independently applied his mind. This argument responded to the petitioner’s contention that the Senior Superintendent of Police’s recommendation was mechanically reproduced.
The Court had earlier called for the original records. After examining them, Justice Kumar asked whether the green sheet formed part of the detention order. When no clear answer emerged, the Bench observed that any material considered by the detaining authority must be furnished to the detenue.
Nataraj clarified that he no longer presses the argument that Wangchuk should have separately challenged the subsequent approval by the State Government and the Advisory Board. He acknowledged that a Supreme Court judgment runs contrary to that proposition.
National Interest and Border Sensitivity
Before concluding, Nataraj urged the Court to consider that the events occurred in a border-sensitive region. He stressed that national interest remains paramount, particularly in volatile areas.
He submitted that the NSA aims to prevent acts that may disturb public order. According to him, actual violence need not occur. The test, he argued, is whether the acts had the potential to affect the tempo of the community.
Health Concerns and Medical Examination
The Court had earlier urged the Centre to reconsider the detention in view of Wangchuk’s reported health issues.
Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta informed the Court that no exception could be made. He stated that doctors examined Wangchuk 28 times in accordance with the Jail Manual. Mehta submitted that Wangchuk may have developed digestive issues and is receiving treatment.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, sought examination by a specialist doctor after complaints of stomachache. Authorities reportedly took Wangchuk to AIIMS Jodhpur, and a medical report was submitted to the Court. After reviewing the report, the Bench orally urged reconsideration of the detention.
Mehta earlier argued that Wangchuk attempted to instigate a “riot-like” situation in a sensitive border area. He submitted that Wangchuk encouraged a Nepal/Bangladesh-style Gen-Z movement and created a “them versus us” narrative concerning the Indian Army.
The Court observed that the Centre may be reading too much into Wangchuk’s speeches. It noted that Wangchuk expressed concern about youth moving away from Gandhian protest methods. The Bench repeatedly asked how the speeches and interviews connect to the alleged violence of September 24.
Petitioners’ Stand
The petitioners argue that the detention order reflects non-application of mind and relies on irrelevant and stale FIRs. They maintain that Wangchuk never incited violence. When violence occurred, he broke his hunger strike and appealed for peace.
Kapil Sibal denied allegations that Wangchuk urged Ladakhis not to assist the Indian Army during wartime. He also denied that Wangchuk supported an Arab Spring-style uprising or a plebiscite in Kashmir.
Case Details
Case Title: Gitanjali J. Angmo v. Union of India and Ors.
