Images/Agencies
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Centre over the accuracy of video transcripts submitted against detained climate activist Sonam Wangchuk and said translations must be precise, especially “in the era of Artificial Intelligence.”A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale asked the government to place on record the actual transcripts of Wangchuk’s speeches after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for his wife Gitanjali Angmo, argued that certain statements attributed to the activist were never made by him.Addressing Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, the bench said, “Mr Solicitor, we want an actual transcript of the speech. What he relied upon and what you say are different. We will decide. There should be an actual transcript of what he says. You may have your reasons.”The top court further observed, “At least, whatever he stated, the true translation should be there. Your translation goes on for 7 to 8 minutes, but the speech is for 3 minutes. We are in the era of Artificial Intelligence; precision is at least 98 per cent for translation.” Sibal questioned the authenticity of the translated material placed before the court and said, “Wangchuk continued his strike and also continued to provoke youth by taking reference of Nepal. Where is this line coming from? This is a very unique detention order — you rely on something that does not exist and then you say it is based on subjective satisfaction.”In response, Nataraj told the bench that there is a separate department that prepares transcripts and said, “We are not experts in it.”The matter will now be heard again on Thursday.The apex body is hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, seeking a declaration that his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, is illegal. The NSA allows the Centre and state governments to detain individuals to prevent them from acting in a manner “prejudicial to the defence of India.” The maximum period of detention under the law is 12 months, although it can be revoked earlier.Wangchuk, a climate activist known for his work in Ladakh, was detained on September 26 last year, two days after violent protests in Leh over demands for statehood and Sixth Schedule status left four people dead and around 90 injured. He is currently lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail.Earlier hearings saw sharp exchanges between the Centre and the court. The government has justified the detention, alleging that Wangchuk made inflammatory speeches, attempted to internationalise the issue of Ladakh and drew comparisons with Chinese and Pakistani provinces. It also claimed that he tried to instigate youth and referred to protests in Nepal and Bangladesh, including “Arab Spring-like agitations.”Solicitor General Tushar Mehta had told the bench that all procedural safeguards under the NSA were “scrupulously complied with” and that Wangchuk was being treated fairly in jail. “This court is dealing with a person who is instigating people in a border area, adjacent to Pakistan and China, where regional sensitivity is involved,” Mehta had said.On the issue of health, Mehta told the court that Wangchuk had been medically examined 24 times since his detention. “We have examined his health periodically 24 times. He is fit, hale and hearty. He had some digestive issues; he is being treated. There is nothing to worry about, nothing alarming. We can’t make exceptions like this,” he said.He added, “The grounds on which the detention order was passed continue. It will not be possible to release him on health grounds. It may not be desirable either. We have given utmost consideration.”However, Angmo has argued that the violence in Leh on September 24 cannot be attributed to Wangchuk’s actions or statements. She told the court that Wangchuk had himself condemned the violence on social media and had described it as the “saddest day” of his life, saying it would lead to the failure of Ladakh’s peaceful “tapasya” of five years.In earlier proceedings, the Supreme Court had asked the Centre whether there was any possibility of rethinking the detention and had directed authorities to place the original file related to the detention before it. The court had also directed that Wangchuk be examined by a specialised doctor and that the medical report be submitted.
