Union Government Rejects Sonam Wangchuk's Plea to Virtually Follow SC Proceedings
New Delhi: The Union government on Monday (December 8) opposed a plea by detained Ladakhi activist Sonam Wangchuk to virtually follow or access online the Supreme Court proceedings in his own case from inside Jodhpur Jail in Rajasthan, where he is being held under the National Security Act (NSA).
During the hearing, solicitor general Tushar Mehta argued that granting such access would create an “unhealthy precedent” by prompting other “convicts” to demand similar allowances, The Hindu reported.
Wangchuk's counsel, senior advocate Kapil Sibal countered that the label was misplaced, pointing out that the climate activist “was neither an ‘accused’ nor a ‘convict’, as he has neither been arrested nor convicted in any case”. He stressed that Wangchuk was only requesting to observe a proceeding that directly concerned “his fundamental right to personal liberty”.
On the same day, the Union government has also rejected Wangchuk's request to appear in the case related to his detention through video conferencing from the jail. Sibal informed the bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria that the activist wished to join the proceedings from jail through a video link and requested the court’s approval. Mehta objected the plea, arguing, “We will have to give the same treatment to all convicts across the country,” The Hindu mentioned in another report.
Wangchuk has been held under the NSA since September 26, two days after demonstrations in Ladakh demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule protections turned violent and resulted in four deaths and left 90 injured. The authorities have accused him of instigating the unrest.
The Supreme Court had earlier, on October 29, sought replies from both the Union government and the Ladakh administration following an amended petition filed by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo. Her plea argued that the detention order was based on “stale FIRs, vague imputations, and speculative assertions”, had “no live or proximate connection” to the stated reasons for detention, and was therefore without “any legal or factual justification”.
The bench has listed the matter for further hearing on December 15.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.
