There is certain malice if the transcription of a 3-minute speech runs for 7-8 minutes, the Supreme Court has said, pulling up the Centre over the translation of activist Sonam Wangchuk’s speech, based on which he was arrested in September.

The bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice PB Varale yesterday heard arguments in a habeas corpus petition by Wangchuk’s wife, Gitanjali Angmo. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Angmo, showed transcripts cited by the Centre. “‘Self-immolation of Ladakhis’ – this is not there. ‘Overthrow the government’ – not there. This is not something that is a surprise to them. I had stated all this earlier. They never responded,” Sibal said.

The court then told Additional Solicitor General KM Nataraj, “Mr Nataraj, we need the actual transcripts of these speeches. This is the basis on which the detention order is passed.”

“The tabular list you have filed, some of these things don’t even find a place in the detention order. There should be at least the correct transcript of what he (Wangchuk) says. There should not be a variance. If the speech is of 3 minutes and your transcription goes on for 7-8 minutes, there is certainly malice in that,” the court said.

When the Additional Solicitor General said a department prepared the transcripts and that “we are not experts”, the court replied, “We are in the era of AI. Precision should be 98 per cent.”