Sonam Wangchuk (File photo)
NEW DELHI: The legal battle over Sonam Wangchuk’s detention seems to be stuck at the transcript of his speech. Pointing out discrepancies in the speech of the climate activist in Ladakhi language and the translated transcript relied upon by govt authorities, his wife Gitanjali Angmo Monday told the court the alleged words on the basis of which the detention order was passed were never uttered by him. A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale prima facie found merit in the allegation and said there seems to be variance. “If the speech is of 3 minutes and your transcription goes on for 7-8 minutes, there is certainly malice in that,” it said.Taking note of the submission by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who appeared for Wangchuk’s wife, the bench said: “In a lighter vein, there’s this couplet, “humne woh sun liya jo unhone kaha hi nahi (we heard what they didn’t say at all)”. To which Sibal responded, “Aur jo hum keh rahe hain unhone suna hi nahi (and they haven’t heard what we are saying)”.Challenging the detention, Sibal told the bench that the detaining authority relied upon an incorrect transcript of Wangchuk’s speech and the authority’s decision was based on non-existent material. He placed before the bench a comparative analysis of what the activist had said and the translated version relied upon by the govt to buttress his submission to the bench. After going through the chart, the bench told additional solicitor general K M Natraj, “The tabular list you have filed, some of these things don’t even find a place in the detention order. There should be at least the correct transcript of what he (Wangchuk) says! There should not be a variance.” The ASG replied that the translation was done by a govt department. The bench said AI could be used for translation with 98% accuracy, at least.Sibal then moved to another point of submission and contended that the videos which were relied upon by the detaining authority were not provided to the activist which is also violation of law, making the detention illegal.He told the court that the four videos of his speeches, which were cited by the detaining authority in the detention order, were not there in the pendrive which was handed over to him on Sept 29.The bench directed the Jodhpur jail superintendent to produce in a sealed box the pendrive given by the govt authority to Wangchuk. “The learned senior counsel would submit that the pendrive furnished to detenu on 29th Sept 2025, is in his custody… we direct the same pendrive… shall be obtained in a sealed box…,” the bench said in its order.
