Wangchuk’s speech sought to stop violence, not incite it: Gitanjali Angmo to SC

Gitanjali J. Angmo, wife of jailed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk on Thursday, told the Supreme Court that the tenor of her husband’s speech was aimed at ending violence, not provoking it, and that facts were being selectively used to portray him as a criminal.

Angmo, through her counsel, also alleged that Wangchuk was not supplied the complete grounds of his detention under the National Security Act (NSA) and was denied a proper opportunity to make an effective representation against the order.

Hearing in the matter remained inconclusive and will continue on 12 January.

Wangchuk was detained under the NSA on 26 September 2025, two days after violent protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and over 90 injured. The administration has accused him of inciting the violence.

The NSA empowers the Centre and state governments to detain individuals to prevent acts considered “prejudicial to the defence of India”, with a maximum detention period of 12 months, subject to review.

Appearing for Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal told a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale that Wangchuk had in fact appealed for calm and restraint.

Playing a video clip of Wangchuk’s address in court, Sibal said the activist had spoken while ending his hunger strike and had urged people to stop the violence.

“I said I cannot accept this violence, and we should stop this violence. I am appealing to you to stop this violence. That is the tenor of the speech,” Sibal said, drawing a parallel with Mahatma Gandhi’s response after the Chauri Chaura incident.
“The tenor of the speech is not in any sense threatening the security of the state, but to quell violence,” he added.

Sibal argued that crucial material was deliberately withheld from the detaining authority as well as from Wangchuk, vitiating the detention process.

He said the detention order dated 26 September 2025 relied heavily on four videos — two from September 10 and 11 and two from September 24 — but these were never furnished to Wangchuk when the grounds of detention were supplied.

According to Sibal, while a pen drive containing documents was given to Wangchuk on 29 September 2025, the four videos forming the basis of the detention were missing.

“The vital material was not placed before the detaining authority with the intent to ensure that the order is passed by keeping him oblivious of what had really happened,” Sibal alleged.

He further contended that the grounds of detention were supplied after an “inordinate delay” of 28 days, in violation of Article 22 of the Constitution, which guarantees protection against arbitrary arrest and detention.

“The law is clear. If the grounds of detention and the documents relied upon are not furnished in time, the detention stands vitiated. The detenu is denied his constitutional right to make an effective representation,” Sibal said.

Referring to a letter written by Wangchuk on 21 October 2025, Sibal told the court that only screenshots, and not the actual videos, were provided to him.

The Leh district magistrate, in an affidavit earlier filed before the apex court, has defended the detention, saying Wangchuk had indulged in activities prejudicial to public order, essential services and the security of the state. The administration has maintained that all grounds and material were duly communicated and that the detention was lawful.

Angmo, however, has argued that the violence in Leh on 24 September could not be attributed to Wangchuk in any manner. In her plea, she said her husband had publicly condemned the violence and stated that it would derail Ladakh’s peaceful struggle of the past five years.

“He said it was the saddest day of his life,” she told the court through her submissions.

The Supreme Court will resume hearing the matter on 12 January, when it is expected to further examine the legality of the detention and the procedural safeguards followed by the authorities.