Supreme Court pulls up Centre over Sonam Wangchuk transcripts: 'We are in AI era...'

Earlier, the Solicitor General had told the Court that release on medical grounds was not warranted and that Wangchuk’s health was stable, despite the Bench urging reconsideration in light of reports of deterioration.

• Supreme Court orders sealed pen drive with key videos be produced
• Bench questions accuracy of speech transcripts in detention order
• Matter to be heard further on Thursday after pen drive submission

Did our AI summary help?

The Supreme Court on Monday ordered that a pen drive handed over to Ladakh-based activist Sonam Wangchuk during his detention be produced before it in a sealed cover, as it examined claims that crucial video material relied upon for his detention was never supplied to him.

A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale directed the Jodhpur Jail Superintendent to secure the device from Wangchuk’s custody, seal it in his presence, and forward it to the Court.

The Additional Advocate General for Rajasthan was asked to ensure compliance. The matter has been listed for further hearing on Thursday.

Order for sealed production

Recording submissions of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali Angmo who has challenged her husband’s detention under the National Security Act (NSA), the Court said: “Heard Kapil Sibal, learned counsel. For further arguments, listed on Thursday. The learned senior counsel would submit that the pendrive furnished to detenue on 29th September, 2025, is in his custody. As such, we direct the same pen drive in his custody shall be obtained in a sealed box by the jail authorities, which shall be sealed in his presence and be forwarded to this court in a sealed box by the superintendent of jail, and Additional Advocate General, appearing for Rajasthan, shall ensure compliance with the same.”

Sibal contended that four video recordings of speeches, cited by the detaining authority in the detention order, were not contained in the pen drive supplied to Wangchuk on September 29, 2025. He argued that failure to furnish the very material relied upon vitiates the detention.

Dispute over supply of materials

Clarifying an earlier exchange, Sibal submitted that while the grounds of detention were served on September 29 and included the material relied upon, the four videos were missing from the device. He said Wangchuk made repeated representations seeking copies of those recordings.

Even assuming, as argued by the Additional Solicitor General, that the videos were shown to him, Sibal maintained they must also be formally supplied.

He further alleged that the authority had relied not only on irrelevant inputs but also on “non-existent materials,” asserting that an incorrect transcript of the speeches had been furnished to the detaining authority. According to him, the respondents did not adequately respond to these points.

Bench questions transcript accuracy

The Bench raised concerns over the manner in which the speeches were translated and placed on record. Justice Kumar asked whether the translated version relied upon by the Union was reflected in the detention order.

“Even in the tabular column you have given, this does not find a place at all...that does not find a place in the detention order. If this is the basis on which you formed your opinion order for detaining him, it should find a place," he said.

Justice Varale was more pointed in questioning the translation. "There should be at least the correct transcript of what he states. You may have your reasons, assuming you are supporting the order, saying that it was for the detaining authority, in what way the speech was given and whether it had the impact or effect," said.

He further said, "At least whatever he stated in the speeches, we expect the true translation...or it should not be that what he said is 2-3 minutes, and your translation goes for 7 to 8 minutes, 10 minutes. Whereas, the speech is of 3 minutes, saying that I condemn this, let us stop this, perhaps we started, but as the violence is there, let us stop this. That is only 3 minutes and your translation goes to 10 minutes, then there is certainly a big variance in that.”

Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, said a department prepared the transcripts and that "we are not experts". To which, the court replied, "We are in the era of Artificial Intelligence; precision is at least 98 per cent for translation."

The Court has now called for the actual transcription of the speeches relied upon by the detaining authority.

Centre defends detention

Earlier, the Solicitor General had told the Court that release on medical grounds was not warranted and that Wangchuk’s health was stable, despite the Bench urging reconsideration in light of reports of deterioration.

The Centre has maintained that procedural safeguards under the NSA were followed. It argued that the statute is preventive in nature and does not require actual violence; the relevant test is whether the acts have the potential to disturb public order. Referring to Section 8(2) of the Act, it was submitted that the authority may withhold disclosure of certain facts if public interest so requires.

Centre's law officers also contended that Wangchuk sought to provoke a “riot-like” situation in a sensitive border region and had made remarks that, according to them, created a “them v us” divide. It was argued that he attempted to instigate a Nepal/Bangladesh-like Gen-Z movement and urged youth to depart from non-violent protest.

However, the Bench observed at one stage that the Centre appeared to be “read too much into it[Wangchuk's speeches]” and noted that he had, in fact, expressed “worry” about youth moving away from Gandhian methods.

Petitioners’ stand

The petitioners have consistently argued that the detention order reflects non-application of mind and is based on irrelevant and stale material, including past FIRs. They deny that Wangchuk ever incited violence or advocated non-cooperation with the armed forces. According to them, when violence occurred on September 24, he broke his hunger strike and appealed for calm.

The Court has repeatedly sought clarification on how the speeches and interviews cited bear a nexus to the alleged violence on September 24. The matter will now proceed with examination of the sealed pen drive and the original transcripts.