Overview
- Senior advocate Kapil Sibal argued that four videos cited in the detention order were not furnished to Wangchuk, undermining his right to make an effective representation under Article 22.
- Sibal contended the Leh District Magistrate merely reproduced the SSP’s recommendation, raised objections to reliance on Section 5A of the NSA, and flagged materials from 2024 and FIRs against unknown persons as stale or irrelevant.
- The bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B. Varale continued the hearing on January 12 and scheduled further arguments for January 13.
- The government has maintained in affidavits that the grounds of detention were supplied within time and that Wangchuk’s family and lawyers have been allowed meetings, while earlier alleging his role in incitement related to the Ladakh unrest.
- Sibal showed or referenced a video of Wangchuk urging peaceful protest, told the Court only one of the four videos is accessible online, and offered to provide the rest on a pen drive.