NEW DELHI, February 19, 2026 : In a significant development, Gitanjali J Angmo, wife of climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, on Thursday alleged before the Supreme Court of India that the videos forming the basis of her husband’s detention were never supplied to him, thereby violating his constitutional right to effective representation.
Appearing for Angmo, senior advocate Kapil Sibal submitted before a bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale that four videos cited by the State were neither provided nor properly shown to Wangchuk. He argued that merely displaying thumbnails on a pen drive did not meet the legal requirement.
Sibal told the court that although the State claims a DIG showed the videos on a laptop on October 5, 2025, the actual video files were not present. “Even if the State claims they were shown, the law mandates that such material must be supplied to the detenue. It is the constitutional duty of the State to provide documents relied upon, without the detenue having to ask,” he asserted.
Another counsel assisting Sibal informed the bench that while the pen drive was inserted in Wangchuk’s laptop, only thumbnails were visible and none of the videos were actually played.
Responding to the allegations, Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj told the court that there exists a video recording of the interaction between the DIG and the detenue, which would clarify the matter. The apex court subsequently directed that it be shown the relevant recordings, including a 40-minute video of the interaction.
The matter has been listed for further hearing on February 23.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had questioned the Centre on the accuracy of transcripts submitted against Wangchuk, stressing that translations must be precise, especially in the age of artificial intelligence. The court sought verbatim transcripts after Sibal contended that several words attributed to Wangchuk were never uttered by him.
The court is hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Angmo challenging Wangchuk’s detention under the National Security Act, 1980. She argued that the violence in Leh on September 24 last year could not be attributed to Wangchuk in any manner, noting that he had publicly condemned the violence and termed it a setback to Ladakh’s peaceful “tapasya” of the past five years.
