Climate activist Sonam Wangchuk, currently detained in Jodhpur Central Jail, has approached the Supreme Court to assert that he was misquoted and that his speeches have been misrepresented. Wangchuk, who is also a Ladakhi statehood campaigner, denies allegations that he called for the overthrow of the government in the manner of the Arab Spring uprisings, emphasizing his democratic right to criticize and protest.

Kapil Sibal, senior advocate representing Wangchuk's wife, Gitanjali Angmo, argued before a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and P B Varale that the police selectively used video footage to mislead the detaining authority. Sibal stated that Wangchuk's statements were "malicious and misleading" and that fact-checkers have debunked the claims attributed to him. He emphasized that Wangchuk never made the statements the police are alleging. Sibal presented transcriptions and links to unedited videos to the court to demonstrate the complete picture and context of Wangchuk's statements.

According to the police, Wangchuk allegedly said that if the Indian government does not grant statehood to Ladakh, he would incite an Arab Spring-style overthrow. Sibal refuted this claim, presenting evidence that Wangchuk was instead referencing peaceful protest methods. He highlighted that Wangchuk could clearly be heard stating that the movement would not involve violence, stones, or arrows, but would be peaceful.

Sibal also addressed another allegation that Wangchuk said the people of Ladakh would not assist the Indian Army in the event of war if the government did not provide assistance. Sibal called this claim false and presented a video link where Wangchuk is praising the government and the Prime Minister.

Furthermore, Sibal denied that Wangchuk made any derogatory remarks against Hindu gods. He explained that Wangchuk's comments were taken out of context by an IT cell. The remarks were meant to convey that after separating Ladakh from Kashmir, the central government had not fulfilled its promise of constitutional safeguards under the Sixth Schedule.

Wangchuk's legal team also brought to the Supreme Court's attention that local authorities had failed to provide the detaining authority with Wangchuk's video messages and social media posts advocating for peace. They argued that this suppression of evidence demonstrated malice and a deliberate attempt to paint Wangchuk in a false light. The grounds for Wangchuk's detention were supplied after a delay of 28 days, violating the statutory timeline. The detention order was primarily based on four videos from September 10, 11, and 24, but these videos were not initially provided to Wangchuk. Sibal argued that the detaining authority should consider all relevant material, including evidence favorable to the detainee, before issuing a detention order.