Asserting that violence in Leh stopped after climate activist Sonam Wangchuk’s detention, the Central government and the Leh administration on Thursday concluded their arguments in the plea challenging his detention under the National Security Act (NSA). The Supreme Court during the hearing asked the Union Government if there was any endorsement made by Ladakh activist Sonam Wangchuk that he has seen the four videos on which the detention order is primarily based.
The government told a Bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and PB Varale that Wanghcuk's detention arrested the violence in Ladakh and this proved that it was justified. "After the detention, complete agitation and violence came under control. Hence it’s proved that it was a perfect order that was justified in the situation," Additional Solicitor General (ASG) KM Nataraj submitted on behalf of the government.
ASG Nataraj also said there was complete application of mind by the detaining authority while arresting Wangchuk and that all procedural safeguards were followed. He submitted that Wangchuk is making an allegation before the highest court of the country that he was not given the material on which the detention order was based, when his own acknowledgement receipt was there that he had seen those four videos.
However, the petitioner disputed this fact. It was pointed out by them that Wangchuk had merely endorsed that he had been supplied the material as per the index of the table of contents, and not that he had seen those videos. Adding to this, it was submitted that when the material was supplied to Wangchuk, they did not contain those four videos, and he wrote various representations asking for the same.
"Kindly see the situation. The border areas, where agitations and violence is erupting. National interest should be the paramount consideration. By ignoring all these aspects, by pointing out various aspects of fundamental rights, the person coming before this Court should also be aware of his fundamental duties towards citizens and the country," Nataraj said. The Court said,"In these matters it is bound to happen."
The Court listed the matter for hearing of rejoinder arguments by the petitioner, Wangchuk's wife Gitanjali J Angmo, on Monday, February 16. In continuation with an exchange it had yesterday with the Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the Court today asked ASJ Nataraj, "Hope you have no objection if we ask you a question. You should not say later that improper questions are being asked. That is why we preface it." In response, Nataraj said that they are bound to answer when the Court poses a question, whether relevant or irrelevant.
Follow us
