The Supreme Court questioned the detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, focusing on medical concerns, interpretations of speeches, and the provision of evidence.the detention of activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act 1980 while his wife's corpus petition challenging his detention was pending before the Supreme Court of India. During the hearing, the court raised several questions to the Union government regarding the circumstances surrounding Wangchuk's preventive detention. Wangchuk had been detained by the late district magistrate on September 26, 2025 following protests in Ladakh demanding statehood that allegedly turned violent.The detention order alleged that he was indulging in activities prejudicial to national security. After his detention, he was shifted to Jodhpur Central Jail.His wife, Dr. Gitanjali moved the Supreme Court on October 3rd seeking a writ of corpus and challenging the legality of the detention. The court issued notice to the center on October 6th, 2025. The matter was heard on multiple dates. The case was scheduled to be heard on March 17th by a bench of Justice Arvind Kumar and Justice PB Varale. However, before the hearing could take place, the center revoked the detention order with immediate effect, noting that Wangchuk had already undergone nearly half of the maximum detention period permitted under the NSA. We examine some of the key questions posed by the court during the hearing.Court urged center to consider release on medical grounds.An application was made to have Wangchuk examined by a specialist physician after he complained of stomach ache, reportedly due to water contamination, allowing for an examination.The court had asked for the medical report to be submitted. After perusing the report, the court on February 4th urged the center to review Wangchuk's detention since his health was not in good condition. The request was made by Justice Varale who had said, give it a thought as the officer of the court. The detention order was passed on the 26th of September 2025, nearly five months, considering more particularly his health and condition of the detainee, which is certainly not very good. Even the report which we saw on the earlier occasion, it shows that his health is not that good and there are certainly other factors age related. Is there any possibility for the government to rethink? However, the center refused to allow his release on medical grounds, claiming that Wangchuk's health was fine and he was getting the best of the treatment. The additional solicitor general went to the extent of saying that it was only because of his detention that he was getting a better treatment at AIMS Jodhpur, as in Ladakh, there would have been nothing. Later, the center conveyed its decision that Wangchuk can't be released on medical grounds as it can't make an exception in a preventive detention matter.Center reading too much into speeches.Throughout the hearing, the center alleged that Wangchuk wanted to break an Arab spring like uprising to overthrow the government and incited tea. He used to self-immolate as had happened during the uprising.It was also said that Wangchuk instigated youth to create riot like situations as happened in Nepal, protest in Nepal, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka. It was alleged that the reference to Gandian non violence was just a facade. Further, Wangchuk was alleged to have called for a plebiscite in Kashmir and said that Tibet under China and Bstan under Pakistan enjoy more autonomy than what Ladakh enjoys.According to the center, he incited Ladakhs not to help the Indian army during wartime.Wangchuk denied that he supported an Arab uprising or self-immolation as a form of protest.It was explained that someone had asked Wangchuk what Ladakhs could do if sixth schedule demands are not met.In response to this, Wangchuk had given an example of the Arab spring and self-immolation and the recent movements in Nepal and Bangladesh, which people around the world have followed and suggested that we should form a Gandian form of non-violent protest.That is how they agreed on a hunger strike. It was also that Wangchuk was told during the interview that someone had expressed that Kargil should go with Kashmir. In response, Wangchuk said that any region should go where it is happy. He asserted that he never asked the Ladakhs not to help the Indian army during war and had, in fact, said that political issues should not be mixed with nationalism.The court repeatedly asked how all these speeches have a nexus with what happened on September 24th and how Wangchuk instigated all this.When it was argued that Wangchuk incited youth towards violent methods of protest under the facade of Gandian ways of protest, Justice Kumar remarked that the center is reading too much into his speeches. Justice Varale said that Wangchuk had in fact shown concern that young people are abandoning the Gandian ways of protest.Justice Kumar also told the SG at one point during the hearing, if you say we don't ask any questions, we won't ask any questions.Questions over four videos.Since the very beginning, Wangchuk maintained that he was supplied with incomplete grounds of detention on September 29th. Four videos dated September 10th, 11th and 24th referred in the detention order were supplied to him after 28 days only on October 23rd and the hearing of the advisory board was the next day. It was also submitted that Wangchuk had made various representations to the authorities asking for the four videos to be furnished, but he was not given any response. The affidavit filed by the late district magistrate stated that Wangchuk was supplied with grounds of detention on September 29th within the five days specified under section 8 of the NSA. It was vehemently claimed that it is an afterthought to claim that four videos were not supplied to him as Dig had personally gone to meet him and showed him the contents of the detention order. The whole exercise was videographed.Later, it also pointed to that there is an acknowledgement by Wangchuk as well that he has seen those four videos. Subsequent to this, Wangchuk had submitted that indeed it was videographed, but the video had no audio and Wangchuk was only shown the thumbnails of the folders which apparently contained those videos. It was mentioned that Wangchuk did not raise this issue then because he was under the impression that he would be able to see it later and challenge it. Wangchuk was given a laptop on October 5th and when he checked the pen drive, the four videos were not there. It was also mentioned that a day before on October 4th, the advisory board had already confirmed his detention. The court questioned whether there was an endorsement by Wangchuk that he had seen those four videos. Justice Varale asked if there was any specific evidence on record to show that Wangchuk had seen those videos, considering he had written four to five letters asking for those videos and there was no response.It ordered that the pen drive furnished to Wangchuk on September 29th be placed in a sealed cover before the court. Justice Varale asked whether such endorsement was obtained that videos are being shown to the detainee and the detainee has seen the video. This endorsement only refers to that he has received documents in a pen drive. It is not disclosed in the endorsement that he had occasion to see the videos. If you have shown the video, you could have drawn a statement to that effect and obtained his signature.Justice Kumar also questioned why no reply was given to the queries regarding this by Wangchuk.Justice Kumar said, SG Natraj, he only said he received documents as per the above index, but he does not say he has seen the contents of those videos. Justice Kumar told Natraj, Mr. Natraj, assuming for a moment, say, we accept your contention, then when he gave this representation, you could have just denied it. Have you done it?More particularly, when the matter was seized by this matter, this is the 13th of October, by which time we were hearing the matter.Let us give that video.Court flags inaccuracy with translations of speeches. Wangchuk had raised the issue of the translation of speeches in the arguments and during rejoinder. It was argued that the speeches were deliberately misinterpreted and his speech appealing for peace was not placed before the detaining authority. The court orally questioned the accuracy of the translation given by the Union and remarked that there should not be any malice in the context that if Wangchuk's original speeches of three to four minutes, the translation should not be of 10 minutes. The bench then asked for a true translation of all speeches along with the original records. Justice Kumar stated that in the era of artificial intelligence, the accuracy is about 98% in translation. Justice Kumar said, even in the tabular column you have given chart by additional solicitor General KM Natraj, this does not find a place at all. That day 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.Justice Varale orally remarked, 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. At least whatever he stated in the speeches, we expect the true translation.There should not be any malice or it should not be that what he said is two to three minutes and your translation goes for seven to eight minutes, 10 minutes. Whereas the speeches of three 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 three minutes and your translation goes to 10 minutes, then there is certainly a big variance in that.In response to the questions raised by the court, the center said it wanted to say something substantial on this, but no effective hearing took place after that and the matter got a journ on the next few dates. Last week, the matter was a journ till March 17th due to the ill health of the solicitor general.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more