NEW DELHI: Jailed Ladakh-based climate and social activist Sonam Wangchuk, through his senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, on Thursday told the Supreme Court that his speech appealing for peace was illegally suppressed from the detaining authority.
He further claimed that his entire movement was through peaceful means and was "not through violence, stones or arrows".
"Sonam Wangchuk could be clearly heard stating in English that the movement would not be through violence, stones or arrows, but through peaceful means. It can even be cleanly seen and heard in the video," Sibal told the two-judge Bench of the apex court, headed by Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice Prasanna Varale.
Claiming innocence in the entire movement, Sibal added that Wangchuk spoke of a peaceful revolution to bring about change without troubling others.
"He did not threaten the security of the State, did not propagate violence, and did not indicate any intent to continue prejudicial activities," Sibal argued.
The senior lawyer further questioning the stand of the probe agency in the case, pointed out that rather on the contrary, he was consistent with national unity and integrity.
Sibal submitted that his speech could not, in any manner, be seen as “threatening the security of the state.”
"The tenor of the speech is not in any sense threatening the security of the state or that I will continue such activities or to propagate violence, but to quell it,” he said.
“The tenor of the speech is consistent with our national integrity and unity which is in fact just the opposite of what the detention order says. They did not go to the website to rely upon this. They should have," Sibal contended before the Court.
The senior lawyer added that the detention order of September 26, 2025, was founded primarily on four videos relied upon by the detaining authority. The videos were of September 10, September 11, and two videos of September 24. However, while the grounds of detention were supplied on September 29, the four videos were not furnished to the detenue.
Questioning the manner in which Wangchuk was detained, Sibal said, as per the detention law, if the detaining authority was aware of a certain fact that is central to what happened on September 24, which was a video relied upon to show that he was propagating violence, then in centrality it must also include a video which in fact states through Wangchuk's words that he was against violence.
"Hiding that fact from the detaining authority will also suggest a kind of malice which would in fact would be another ground for declaring the order to be vitiated on grounds of malice," he added.
Narrating the case details to the court, Sibal stated that this was the most relevant and proximate material. He further questioned why the detaining authority chose to not rely on it while passing the detention order.
During the course of the hearing on Thursday, certain videos of Wangchuk's were played in the courtroom and the judges went through it.
The court recorded all the submissions of Sibal and fixed the matter for further hearing on January 12, Monday at 2 PM.
The apex court was hearing a plea filed by Gitanjali J Angmo, wife of Wangchuk, alleging that his detention was illegal and an arbitrary exercise that violated his fundamental rights.
Angmo, the wife of Wangchuk, in her amended application has claimed before the Supreme Court that his detention was not based on genuine concerns of public order or security, and suffered from gross illegality and arbitrariness.
Angmo in her plea further alleged that it was a calculated attempt to silence Wangchuk’s right to dissent.
"The detention order suffers from gross illegality and arbitrariness, as it relies upon stale, irrelevant, and extraneous FIRs. Out of the five FIRS relied upon, three pertain to the year 2024, bearing no proximate, live, or rational nexus to the detention of Wangchuk in September 2025," the amended application of Angmo said.
“Moreover, four out of five of the FIRs, out of which three are registered against unknown persons, do not name Wangchuk. There is thus no clear, live, proximate, or intelligible connection between the FIRs and the preventive detention of Wangchuk under the NSA, 1980," the amended application further read.
Angmo stated that the Respondents, including the Centre, have violated safeguards under Section 11(1) of the NSA.
"Wangchuk has not been afforded an effective opportunity to make a representation before the Advisory Board, thereby rendering the statutory safeguard illusory. Section 11(1) of the NSA necessarily contemplates that the Detenu must not only be informed of his right of representation but must be placed in a fair position to exercise that right effectively, with access to all material relied upon by the detaining authority," she added.
Wangchuk was arrested on September 26 under the NSA in the wake of the violent protests that erupted in Ladakh over the demand for statehood for the region.
As per the case details, Wangchuk had been on a hunger strike since September 10, and when violence started in the town, he broke his fast and escaped from the spot in an ambulance.
Wangchuk was later detained under the NSA and shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail in Rajasthan.
Angmo further submitted that by denying the authorised "friend" access to the complete grounds and supporting material, the detaining authority effectively obstructed Wangchuk's preparation of a meaningful representation, thereby frustrating the very object of Section 11(1) of the NSA in contravention of settled law
"The continued detention of Wangchuk should be vitiated on account of the grave and incurable procedural lapses committed by the Respondents. These lapses strike at the foundation of the constitutional and statutory safeguards embodied under the NSA, 1980," she argued.
The renowned climate activist, Wangchuk was accused by the Union of allegedly inciting a violent protest in Ladakh.
Angmo, has filed the writ petition, through a habeas corpus plea, on October 2, in the top court under Article 32 of the Indian Constitution and claimed that the arrest of her husband, Wangchuk, was illegal. Wangchuk was agitating for statehood and the UT's inclusion in the 6th Schedule.
Angmo questioned the slapping of the NSA against her husband as she claimed that his "arrest was illegal and a violation of rules."
She added that there was no contact with her husband following his arrest.
Terming the detention of Wangchuk as "without cause," Angmo questioned why she was not allowed to speak to Wangchuk over the phone or in person.
The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) held Wangchuk responsible for inciting violence in Leh town.