- The Supreme Court criticised the Centre for a lengthy transcription of Wangchuk's 3-minute speech
- The court requested the actual transcript to verify the basis of Wangchuk's detention order
- Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal said the Centre relied on inaccurate and subjective evidence
There is certain malice if the transcription of a 3-minute speech runs for 7-8 minutes, the Supreme Court has said, pulling up the Centre over the translation of activist Sonam Wangchuk's speech, based on which he was arrested in September.
The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale yesterday heard arguments in a habeas corpus petition by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, showed transcripts cited by the Centre. "'Self-immolation of Ladakhis' - this is not there. 'Overthrow the government' - not there. This is not something that is a surprise to them. I had stated all this earlier. They never responded," Sibal said.
The court then told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, "Mr Nataraj, we need the actual transcripts of these speeches. This is the basis on which the detention order is passed."
"The tabular list you have filed, some of these things don't even find a place in the detention order. There should be at least the correct transcript of what he (Wangchuk) says. There should not be a variance. If the speech is of 3 minutes and your transcription goes on for 7-8 minutes, there is certainly malice in that," the court said.
When the Additional Solicitor General said a department prepared the transcripts and that "we are not experts", the court replied, "We are in the era of AI. Precision should be 98 per cent."
Targeting the Centre, Sibal said, "They relied on something that doesn't exist and then they say it is subjective satisfaction? Subjective satisfaction of something that doesn't exist? Nowhere have I said you come up like GenZ etc, and all this is given by the Solicitor General."
"He (Wangchuk) says there was a promise made to us in the manifesto (of Statehood). And that has not been granted. And now five years have passed. We must do something about it. And what he does is anshan (strike). Since 2022, has any speech of his incited any violence? We are not even dealing with a case where there is instigation to commit violence or public disorder," he said.
At one point, the court said in a lighter vein, "There's this couplet: 'humne wo bhi suna jo unhone kaha hi nahi' (We heard what they never said)". Sibal replied, "Yes. Aur jo hum keh rahe hai unhone suna hi nahi (And they never heard what we said)."
The court also sought a pendrive with recordings of Wangchuk's speech that the authorities gave him at the time of detention. The court said the pendrive must be collected in a sealed box from the jail in Jodhpur, where Wangchuk is currently lodged, and produced in court tomorrow. Wangchuk has been charged under the stringent National Security Act.
Since 2023, has been protesting over the effects of climate change on Ladakh's fragile ecosystem and demanding that the Union Territory be provided safeguards under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution.
In September last year, he began a 35-day fast to press the statehood demand. The protest turned violent 15 days later, leading to four deaths. Wangchuk called off his fast and said his "message of peaceful path failed"."I appeal to the youngsters to shun the path of violence. This nullifies my five-year struggle. We have been holding strikes, marches, and violence is not our path," he said.
