Supreme Court Considers Habeas Corpus Plea Against Sonam Wangchuk’s NSA Detention

The Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale heard detailed submissions from Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for the petitioner, who argued that the detention was vitiated due to serious procedural lapses and suppression of material crucial to Wangchuk’s defence.

Sibal submitted that the detention order dated September 26, 2025, relied primarily on four videos dated September 10, 11 and 24, which were cited as the most proximate material leading to the detention. However, despite the grounds of detention being supplied on September 29, these four videos were not furnished to the detenue, amounting to a clear violation of Article 22 of the Constitution.

He argued that the law was well settled that failure to supply documents relied upon in the grounds of detention renders the detention illegal, regardless of whether the detenue was otherwise aware of their contents. Citing multiple Supreme Court precedents, including Ahmed v. Union of India and Khudiram Das, Sibal stressed that timely supply of all relied-upon material is a constitutional mandate, and any delay or denial defeats the detenue’s right to make an effective representation.

Sibal further pointed out that while the authorities claimed the videos were supplied, there was no proof of such supply. He stated that a pen drive provided on September 29 did not contain the four videos, and although a laptop was later given on October 5, it did not cure the initial illegality. He also told the Court that despite repeated written requests by Wangchuk for the missing videos, they were never furnished.

A key plank of Sibal’s argument was a video recorded on September 24, when Wangchuk broke his hunger strike after violence erupted. Playing the clip for the Bench, Sibal said the speech clearly showed Wangchuk appealing for an immediate end to violence and distancing himself from any unlawful acts. He argued that this was the most relevant and proximate material, yet it was deliberately not placed before the detaining authority, thereby misleading it into believing that Wangchuk’s actions threatened public order.

“This speech was not only non-violent but rooted in Gandhian satyagraha. It actually quells violence rather than incites it,” Sibal said, adding that suppression of such exculpatory material pointed to malice and independently vitiated the detention order.

The Bench watched the video during the hearing on their laptop. Sibal also placed the detention in a broader context, arguing that adverse actions against Wangchuk and his institutions including cancellation of land leases, CBI inquiries and tax notices surfaced only in August–September 2025, soon after the Ladakh agitation intensified.

While acknowledging that judicial review of preventive detention is limited, Sibal urged the Court to intervene on clear procedural violations, particularly non-supply of relied-upon documents and suppression of material favourable to the detenue.

The Bench asked Sibal to complete his submissions and indicated that it would hear the matter at length.

The case has been listed for further hearing on Monday, January 12, at 2 PM.

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,