New Delhi (PTI): Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo alleged in the Supreme Court on Thursday that four videos which formed the basis of her husband's detention were not shown to him and only the thumbnails on pen drive were displayed.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing in the court for Angmo, told a bench of justices Aravind Kumar and Prasanna B Varale that not supplying the videos violated Wangchuk's right to effective representation before the advisory board as well as the government.
"It is now alleged by the State that that DIG came with a laptop and shown four videos. The laptop was provided to detenue on October 5, 2025, but those four vidoes were not there.
"Let us assume they showed it to be, that is not the requirement of law. The requirement is to give it to me. They have to provide the document, I don't have to ask. It is there constitutional duty to supply. We have said that time and again that the four was never supplied," Sibal said.
Another lawyer assisting Sibal informed the court that the pen drive was inserted in the laptop before Wangchuk and he only saw the thumbnails.
"The videos were not actually played. None of the thumbnails were actually clicked," the lawyer said.
Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj submitted that there is a video in which the conversation with the DIG and detenue will show everything.
The top court said it see the relevant video recordings, including a 40-minute video of the interaction between police officials and the detenue.
The matter is now posted for hearing on February 23.
On Monday, the apex court had questioned the Centre about the transcripts of videos submitted by it against Wangchuk and said the translations should be precise in the age of artificial intelligence.
It had told Nataraj that it wanted actual transcripts of Wangchuk's statements from the government after Sibal submitted that some of the words attributed to the activist were never said by him.
The top court was hearing a habeas corpus petition filed by Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo, seeking a declaration that his detention under the National Security Act (NSA), 1980, is illegal.
The NSA empowers the Centre and the states to detain individuals to prevent them from acting in a manner "prejudicial to the defence of India."
The maximum detention period is 12 months, though it can be revoked earlier. Angmo said the violence in Leh on September 24 last year cannot be attributed in any manner to the actions or statements of Wangchuk.
Wangchuk himself condemned the violence through his social media handles and categorically said it would lead to the failure of Ladakh's "tapasya" and its peaceful pursuit of five years, Angmo said, adding that it was the saddest day of his life.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Pratapgarh (UP) (PTI): Four people were booked here for the abduction and assault of a man who they allegedly tied to a tree and beat up, police said on Wednesday.
The incident, a video of which has gone viral, took place on Tuesday afternoon under the Kunda police station limits.
The FIR was registered on Wednesday evening based on a complaint from the victim's father.
According to Keshav Prasad Yadav, a resident of Mauli village, some people called his 18-year-old son Nikhil Yadav on the phone and asked him to come out of his house around 2.30 pm on Tuesday.
As he reached outside the village as instructed, the accused allegedly forced him into a car and took him towards the Tinpedwa forest area, where they tied him to a tree and assaulted, the complainant said.
The attackers also recorded a video of the incident and circulated it on social media. The purported video shows the men thrashing Nikhil one after another, while one of them is assumed to have recorded the act.
Kunda Station House Officer Manoj Pandey confirmed the incident and said efforts are underway to identify and arrest all the accused.
Meanwhile, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav has shared the video on social media, describing the incident as reflective of a "dominant mindset" against the PDA (Pichda or Backward, Dalit, and Alpasankhyak or Minority), and demanded strict action against the accused.
