DetentionCase – Supreme Court to Hear Plea on Activist’s Custody
DetentionCase – The Supreme Court is set to examine a petition on Thursday filed by Geetanjali Angmo, the wife of Ladakhi environmental campaigner Sonam Wangchuk, challenging his detention and seeking his immediate release. The case has drawn attention after questions emerged over the accuracy of translated material used to justify his arrest.
Court Questions Accuracy of Speech Transcripts
Earlier this week, the apex court sought clarification from the Union government regarding discrepancies in English translations of speeches attributed to Wangchuk. The bench noted apparent inconsistencies between the original addresses delivered in Ladakhi and the versions submitted by authorities as part of the detention record.
On Monday, the court directed that the original pen drive reportedly handed to Wangchuk during his arrest in September 2025 be produced before it by Thursday. The instruction came as hearings in the matter neared completion.
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale observed that while interpretation of a speech may vary, the text itself must remain consistent. The judges pointed out that the translated transcript appeared longer and more detailed than the original three-minute speech in which Wangchuk had reportedly called for an end to violence.
The court also remarked on the challenges of translation, noting that technological tools, including artificial intelligence systems, may not always ensure complete precision.
Allegations of Procedural Lapses
In her petition, Angmo has argued that her husband’s detention order is flawed on procedural grounds. She contends that Wangchuk was not properly informed of the specific reasons for his arrest, as required under law.
According to the plea, speeches delivered by Wangchuk in previous years were allegedly presented in a manner that suggested he had incited violence during unrest in September last year. That episode resulted in four deaths and left hundreds injured. Angmo maintains that the speeches have been selectively or inaccurately translated to build a case linking him to the violence.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Wangchuk, told the court that certain statements cited by authorities do not appear in the comparative chart placed on record. He argued that the detention order relies on material that, in his view, does not exist in the original speeches.
Responding to these submissions, the bench said it wanted a verified and accurate transcript of the speeches in question. The judges stated that the versions presented by the petitioner and the government appeared to differ significantly, making it necessary to examine the original material.
Video Evidence Under Scrutiny
During the hearing, the court also examined whether Wangchuk had been shown video clips containing the allegedly objectionable speeches at the time of his arrest. The issue gained prominence after Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, informed the court that four video clips were shared with the activist before he was taken into custody.
The bench sought confirmation on this point from Sibal, as access to the materials cited in a detention order is considered crucial to ensuring that a detainee can effectively challenge the grounds of arrest.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on Thursday, when Sibal is expected to conclude his arguments. The court’s forthcoming observations are likely to address both the procedural validity of the detention and the reliability of translated evidence presented in support of it.