Sonam Wangchuk Case: Supreme Court to Continue Hearing Challenge to NSA Detention

The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P.B. Varale heard detailed submissions from Sibal, who argued that Wangchuk’s fundamental right to make an effective representation under Article 22 of the Constitution had been violated.

Sibal told the Court that the detention was founded on four grounds, including four videos dated September 24, which were never supplied to the detenue. “I have a right of representation to the advisory board and the detaining authority. That right got truncated because these videos were not given to me,” he submitted.

The Bench queried whether the alleged non-supply of material had impacted the constitutional right of representation. In response, Sibal relied on Articles 22(1) and 22(5) of the Constitution and argued that Section 5A of the NSA could not be used to dilute these guarantees.

“In normal circumstances, I would challenge Section 5A itself as unconstitutional. How can a statute get into the mind of the detaining authority?” Sibal argued, adding that Article 22 could not be made subject to Section 5A of the NSA. He maintained that the provision could apply, if at all, only when all relied-upon material had been furnished, which was not the case here.

The Court asked whether Sibal’s contention was that Section 5A was inapplicable. Answering in the affirmative, Sibal said the statute must be interpreted in a manner consistent with Article 22, and a constitutional right could not be taken away by statutory fiction.

Sibal further alleged non-application of mind by the detaining authority, stating that the grounds of detention were a verbatim reproduction of the recommendation made by another authority, which itself had not been supplied. “The exact words, the exact sentences are the same. It is borrowed satisfaction,” he submitted.

Engaging with the argument, the Bench observed that the challenge appeared to be based on the claim that the detention order rested on borrowed material without independent application of mind. Sibal agreed, asserting that irrelevant and stale material had been relied upon.

He pointed out that several documents referred to incidents from March 2024 onwards, while the detention order was passed in September 2025. According to him, the alleged grounds of detention were said to arise from events of September 10, 11 and 24, 2025, but material relating to those dates had not been supplied.

Referring to videos uploaded on Wangchuk’s YouTube channel, Sibal argued that the authorities relied on content either subsequent to the alleged incident or content in which Wangchuk did not even appear. He contended that the law required a proximate link between the material relied upon and the detention order, which was completely absent.

“If irrelevant material is relied upon, the detention is bad in law,” Sibal submitted, adding that FIRs cited by the authorities neither named Wangchuk nor related to his speech. He also noted that while an FIR was registered on September 25 in relation to violence, there had been no progress even by January 2026.

As the hearing drew to a close, Sibal urged the Court to continue the matter without a long adjournment, remarking that delays affected fairness. In a lighter exchange, when the Court said judges do not forget, Sibal replied that he might.

The matter was part-heard and will continue on Tuesday, January 13.

Previously, on December 8, 2025, a request was made before the Court on behalf of Sonam Wangchuk to allow him virtual appearance before Supreme Court. Earlier, court had allowed an application seeking to place on record additional facts and grounds in the habeas corpus petition filed by Gitanjali Angmo, wife of Sonam Wangchuk.