Govt's AI defence after Supreme Court flags Sonam Wangchuk speech translation

The Supreme Court on Monday questioned the Centre over discrepancies in the translated speeches used to detain climate activist Sonam Wangchuk under the National Security Act, with the government responding that the exercise had been carried out by a department and, in today’s age, artificial intelligence was believed to be highly accurate.

The bench said the least it expected was a correct translation, noting that the version placed on record appeared far longer and materially different from what Wangchuk had actually said, which, according to his counsel, was limited to condemning violence.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Wangchuk, argued that the government had failed to respond to key objections raised earlier, especially regarding a speech delivered during an hunger strike on September 24 — two days before the activist was detained.

Sibal said the speech was the “most proximate event” to the detention but the authorities had relied on what he described as incorrect translations. Reading from the material, he asked the bench, “Where has he said anything about overthrowing any government?”

Justice Aravind Kumar, part of the Supreme Court bench, pointed out that some of the allegations did not even find mention in the detention order.

The court then told the Centre in strong words: “There should be at least the correct translation of what he said. That is the least we expect. Your translation is of seven-eight minutes and his speech is simply for three minutes saying I condemn this, let’s stop this. That’s it.”

CENTRE CITES DEPARTMENTAL TRANSLATION

Responding to the bench, the government’s counsel said the translation had been done by a department and the language was not known to him. He added that in the age of artificial intelligence, translations were said to be highly accurate.

Sibal shot back, half in jest, that AI could be “very dangerous” and insisted the court must look at what Wangchuk had actually said rather than what was attributed to him.

Justice P B Varale lightened the moment with a couplet about hearing things that were never spoken, prompting Sibal to respond with another: “What we said, they never heard.”

DEFENCE QUESTIONS WANGCHUK’S DETENTION

The Centre has previously defended the detention, telling the court last week that Wangchuk was the “chief provocateur” behind the September 24 violence in Leh in which four people died and dozens were injured. It has argued that all procedural safeguards under the NSA were followed and that the situation calmed after he was taken into custody.

Wangchuk’s wife has challenged the detention, saying he had in fact condemned the violence and consistently called for peaceful protest.

On Monday, Kapil Sibal, appearing in Supreme Court maintained that for years Wangchuk’s protests had not led to violence and the context of the agitation had to be appreciated. There was a promise in a manifesto that remained unfulfilled, he said, which led protesters to adopt fasting as a democratic method.

He alleged the detaining authority had shown no real application of mind, calling parts of the order a “copy-paste exercise”, and argued the court should decide the matter on the basis of the material already submitted instead of giving the government another opportunity.

During the hearing, the top court directed that a pen drive supplied to Wangchuk be taken from his custody by jail authorities, sealed in his presence and produced before it. The additional advocate general for Rajasthan has been asked to ensure compliance.

Sibal had contended that four videos cited in the detention order were missing from the original device given to the activist and were furnished separately nearly four weeks later.

With these directions, the hearing was concluded for the day.

- Ends

Tune In