Did Sonam Wangchuk confirm he saw videos that led to detention: Supreme Court

Additional Solicitor General K M Nataraj, appearing for the Centre, urged the court to peruse the detention order saying, “There are 23 videos which have been relied (on) in the detention order, and everything has been supplied to him (Wangchuk) and that is with acknowledgement… All the videos which have been referred (to) in the annexure have been supplied in detail.”

Angmo’s counsel, however, said Wangchuk had only endorsed receipt of the videos mentioned in the index but that doesn’t mean he had seen them. Also, the four videos were missing from the pen drive supplied to him, the counsel said.

“The pen drive which was supplied to us…mischievously did not have those videos…. When we found out, we repeatedly wrote to them… raising issue of non-supply,” the counsel said, pointing out that these letters were part of the petition. The counsel added, “We are not alleging the non-supply of other videos.”

Nataraj said the DIG met Wangchuk personally and showed him the videos and that this was videographed. Thereafter, a laptop was supplied to Wangchuk to see those videos again, the ASG said.

Justice Kumar, however, pointed out that “he (Wangchuk) only said he received documents as per the…index…but he does not say he has seen the contents of those videos”.

The court then asked the ASG if the Centre could produce some endorsement in this regard. Justice Kumar said such an endorsement “would have contained (endorsement) that I have seen those videos”.

Justice Varale, too, echoed the concern and said, “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 video(s)…If you have shown the video, you could have drawn a statement to that effect and obtained his signature.”

Justice Varale also referred to the petitioner’s contention that Wangchuk had written several letters seeking the copies of the videos. “He wrote four-five letters,” he said.

Justice Kumar said the detaining authorities could have replied to these letters, saying the videos were already given to him.

“Assuming for a moment we accept your contention, then when he gave this representation, you could have just denied it…Have you done it?… More particularly, when the court was seized of this matter… This is 13 October, by which time we were hearing the matter,” said Justice Kumar.

Nataraj also denied Wangchuk’s argument that the detaining authority simply copy-pasted the SSP’s recommendation and there was no independent application of mind. He said the District Magistrate had taken cognizance of every aspect.

The court will now hear the matter next on February 16.

Justifying the detention order, the ASG said the violence had come to an abrupt end with Wangchuk’s detention.

“After the detention, complete agitation and violence came under control. Hence it’s proved that it’s a perfect order which was justified in the situation,” he said.

Concluding his submission, Nataraj also referred to “national interest” and said Wangchuk ought to have been aware of his fundamental duties as well.

“Kindly see the situation in the border areas where agitations and violence are erupting. In such a situation, ultimately, it is the national interest that is the paramount consideration for everyone… By ignoring all these aspects, by pointing out that yes, I have a fundamental right… the person who comes before the court, he should be aware of his fundamental duties towards not only every citizen but also towards the country,” he said.