Wangchuk denies in Supreme Court allegations of remarks about overthrowing govt like Arab Spring

New Delhi: Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, who is under detention in Jodhpur Central Jail, denied in the Supreme Court on Thursday allegations that he made a statement to overthrow the government like Arab Spring, emphasising that he has the democratic right to criticise and protest.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali Angmo, submitted before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale that police have relied on a selective video to mislead the detaining authority.

"Look at the video. What he says (according to the police) is if the government of India will not give statehood, he will overthrow the government like the Arab Spring.

"He does not say so. I will give the transcription (of the video)," Sibal told the bench.

The Arab Spring is a series of anti-government protests, uprisings and armed rebellions that spread across the Middle East and North Africa around 2010 and 2018.

Sibal also refuted that Wangchuk had said in one interview that the people of Ladakh would not help the Indian Army during war if the government did not help.

"False, that is the problem with this case. They have misled the detaining authority. I have a link to the video itself where he is praising the government and the prime minister; the video makes specific reference to peaceful protest...

"Somebody told him (Wangchuk) Kargil wants to merge with Kashmir. He said, 'Fine, if they want to join, they can join.' There's nothing relating to a plebiscite," Sibal said.

Sibal also denied allegations against Wangchuk that he made any derogatory remarks against Hindu gods and said some IT cell falsely projected it.

"The unedited version brings out the complete picture. It was meant to say that after liberating Ladakh from Kashmir, the central government failed to extend its promise of constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule (of the Constitution). He says like Ram got Sita out of the clutches of Ravan and left her in the market, a similar thing the central government did with Ladakh.

"He just made this allegorical statement on Ram. If these are statements on the basis of which one is detained, then we might as well stop speaking. His wife is a practising Hindu," Sibal said.

The senior lawyer said Ladakh is a pristine place where nature has to be preserved.

"A lot of investments of different kinds are coming in now. The same thing happened in Uttarakhand. There is the Aravalli matter now. We must protest. There's nothing wrong with that. If Ladakh is to remain pristine, we don't want any kind of activity that destroys the environment," Sibal said.

The hearing remained inconclusive and will continue on February 2.

Angmo has moved the top court against Wangchuk's detention under the National Security Act (NSA).

She had earlier submitted that the tenor of a speech delivered by her husband at Leh was not to propagate violence but to quell it, and that facts were being manipulated to portray him as a criminal.

Angmo had also told the court that Wangchuk was not provided with the "complete grounds" of his detention or given a proper opportunity to make a representation to the authority concerned against the action.

The plea claims that the detention is illegal and an arbitrary exercise, violating Wangchuk's fundamental rights.

The top court deferred the matter on November 24 last year, after Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Centre and the Union Territory of Ladakh, sought time to respond to a rejoinder filed by Angmo.

On October 29, the court sought responses from the Centre and the Ladakh administration on an amended plea of Angmo.

Wangchuk was detained under the stringent NSA on September 26 last year, two days after violent protests demanding statehood and Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh left four people dead and 90 injured in the Union Territory. The government has accused Wangchuk of inciting the violence.

The NSA empowers the Centre and 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.

According to the 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 power amounts to 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," the plea has contended.

It has said that it is wholly preposterous that after more than three decades of being recognised at the state, national and international levels for his contributions to grassroots education, innovation and environmental conservation in Ladakh and across India, Wangchuk would suddenly be targeted.

Angmo has said the unfortunate events of violence in Leh on September 24 cannot be attributed to the actions or statements of Wangchuk in any manner.

Wangchuk had himself condemned the violence through his social media handles and categorically said it would lead to the failure of Ladakh's "tapasya" and peaceful pursuit of five years, Angmo said, adding that it was the saddest day of his life.