The Supreme Court continued to hear on January 12 from the petitioner, Gitanjali Angmo, who contends that the detention of social activist, Sonam Wangchuk, is an unlawful act under the National Security Act, 1980 (NSA). Wangchk was detained during the protests for statehood that turned violent since September 2025.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale has been hearing the matter.
Also Read | Adopted children entitled to compassionate jobs, rules Odisha High Court
Advocate argues for petitioner
Argument 1: On Monday, senior advocate Kapil Sibal (on behalf of Angmo) essentially presented three arguments, as reported by Live Law. The first being that the detaining authority has not provided him with the 4 videos on which it relied upon. This violates his right to effective representation, not only through the Advisory Board under the NSA but also through the governing body.
Referring to Article 22(1) and 22(5), he stated that no individual shall be detained without first being notified of the grounds against him and he shall have the right to consult with a legal practitioner. He stated that the courts interpret the term 'legal practitioner' and include those beyond legal counsel, which would also include friends such as his spouse.
Argument 2: Next, Sibal submitted that the District Magistrate (DM) did not think, when recommending the detention of Wangchuk, because he merely "cop-pasted" the DM's recommendations from those of the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP) of Ladakh. As further argument, Sibal went on to state that the recommendations made by the SSP do not appear to have ever been provided as an exhibit.
"Why do we say what we are saying? In the document of 26 September, 2025 from SSP to District Magistrate, we have been given only the first page. We received it on December 7, and only the first page and that is why we are assuming it is the copy paste. That is the foundation of the submission, rest is the presumption."
When Justice Varale inquired whether Sibal believed that simply repeating the recommendations would not be sufficient proof that the detaining authority had given them thoughtful consideration, Sibal responded in the affirmative.
Also Read | What is 'Romeo-Juliet' clause in POCSO Act
Argument 3: In closing, Sibal emphasised that some of the documents used by the authority against him were issued in the year 2024. He also stated that there are a number of First Information Reports (FIR) filed against unknown offenders that have been cited as evidence against him. However, no action has been taken regarding the FIR submitted in September, which was the product of the violence that took place during that time.
As far as access to the videos is concerned, the Court inquired as to how to access the four videos presented, and Sibal stated that only one of the four videos is available on the Internet and so he would give the Court a pendrive in this regard.
The arguments will continue on January 13 (Tuesday).
