Centre opposes Sonam Wangchuk's plea for permission to appear in SC hearing through video conferencing

The Centre on Monday vehemently opposed climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s plea for permission to virtually appear before the Supreme Court from the Jodhpur Central Jail in the hearing on his petition challenging his detention under the National Security Act, 1980.

During hearing on his wife Dr Gitanjali Angmo’s petition challenging the detention in connection with Ladakh violence, senior counsel Kapil Sibal, representing her, told a Bench of Justice Aravid Kumar and Justice NV Anjarai that the activist should be connected via video conferencing.

"Sonam was to be connected via video (conferencing) from jail… that order your Lordships may (pass), " Sibal told the Bench, leading to a sharp reaction from the Solicitor General.

"I have something to say on that because then… We will have to give the same treatment to all convicts across the country. It's not an exception…We will assist in opposing that only for the reason that throughout the country, wherever there is live streaming, the accused and the convict will have to (be connected via video conferencing),”  Mehta submitted.

The top court had on October 29 asked the Centre and the Ladakh Administration to respond to an amended petition of Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo.

The activist was detained on September 26 under Section 3(2) of the NSA, two days after protests demanding Ladakh’s statehood and the Sixth Schedule status turned violent, leaving four persons dead and nearly 100 injured. He is currently lodged in Jodhpur Central Jail.

Angmo has challenged Wangchuk’s detention, terming it “illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional”, saying the detention order violated her husband’s fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 14 (right to equality), 19 (right to various freedoms), 21 (right to life and liberty) and 22 (Protection against arrest and detention in certain cases) of the Constitution.

According to Angmo’s amended plea, “The detention order is founded upon stale FIRs, vague imputations, and speculative assertions, lacks any live or proximate connection to the purported grounds of detention and is thus devoid of any legal or factual justification... Such arbitrary exercise of preventive powers amounts to a gross abuse of authority, striking at the core of constitutional liberties and due process, rendering the detention order liable to be vitiated by this court.”