New Delhi: “If a three-minute speech is stretched into seven or eight minutes in transcription, there is certainly malice,” the Supreme Court observed while questioning the Centre over the translation of activist Sonam Wangchuk’s remarks material that formed the basis of his arrest in September.
A bench comprising Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale was hearing a habeas corpus plea filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo. During the proceedings, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Angmo, referred to portions of the transcripts relied upon by the government.
He argued that phrases such as “self-immolation of Ladakhis” and “overthrow the government” did not appear in the original speech. “This is not new to them. I had pointed this out earlier, and there was no response,” Sibal submitted.
Responding to the submissions, the court asked Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj to produce the authentic transcripts of the speeches, noting that the detention order was founded on those very records.
What SC says
The Supreme Court has sharply questioned the Central government over alleged discrepancies in the transcripts of activist Sonam Wangchuk’s speech, which formed the basis of his detention under the National Security Act (NSA).
Wangchuk was arrested in September, and his wife filed a ‘habeas corpus petition’, challenging his detention. During the hearing, his lawyer Kapil Sibal argued that the government’s transcripts included statements that Wangchuk never made, such as references to “self-immolation” and “overthrowing the government.”
The court observed that if a three minute speech is transcribed into seven or eight minutes with added content, it suggests possible malice or deliberate distortion. It rejected the Centre’s explanation that officials were “not experts,” remarking that in the AI era, high precision is expected instead of excuses.
The judges have now sought the original audio recordings to verify what was actually said.
Why this matters
If the transcripts are found inaccurate or manipulated, it could weaken the legal basis of Wangchuk’s detention. The case revolves around whether his protest speeches were misrepresented to justify invoking a stringent security law.
Detained over protest demanding statehood
Wangchuk was detained after launching a prolonged fast and leading protests demanding statehood for Ladakh and constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule. Authorities invoked the National Security Act, alleging that certain speeches and mobilisations could potentially disturb public order, a claim his legal team has strongly contested, maintaining that his movement has consistently advocated peaceful and democratic methods.
Disclaimer : This story is auto aggregated by a computer programme and has not been created or edited by DOWNTHENEWS. Publisher: ZEE News
