Videos cited against me not played, only thumbnails were shown to me: Sonam Wangchuk tells Supreme Court

Sibal: Annexure A has 8 videos and Annexure B has 9 videos. But the 8 videos in Annexure A do not include the four videos that are of 10th, 11th and 24th September

ASG Nataraj: Let me clarify. The conversation between the DIG and detenue that will throw light on everything. The DIG asked to the detenue are you satisfied with it and he answers yes. Thats in the video

Counsel for Wangchuk: According to the detenue the 40 min videography will show since no video was played, because you can hear the video if its played. He is saying that the videography is the proof that none of the thumbnails were actually clicked because if they were clicked there would be sound that would be recorded in the videography

Bench: Tuesday or Wednesday we will see those videos and we will have to make arrangements here itself. If required if we find any doubt which we may want to clarify, we will come back to you

Sibal: I have made all my submissions

Sibal: So if you are referring to an FIR or an incident it must be linked to me and if you refer to it, it has nothing to do with me the detention order will be set aside.

Sibal: My shunning violence becomes a reason for me being detained.

Sibal reads part of the judgment which speaks on when courts can question the subjective satisfaction

Sibal: As a matter of law, you cannot rely on part of a document, you have to rely on the document

SG Mehta: Today Mr Sibal may take time till 3-3:15. Can I respond tomorrow

Sonam Wangchuk’s wife Gitanjali J Angmo present in the court

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for the petitioners is likely to continue his arguments today.