Delhi High Court issued notice to Delhi Police on Prabir Purkayastha’s plea against UAPA FIR. The Delhi Police objected to the issuance of notice in the case and said that offences alleged were prima facie made out against Purkayastha.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has called for a response from the Delhi Police regarding a plea filed by Prabir Purkayastha, a key figure associated with NewsClick, challenging the FIR lodged under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This move comes amidst escalating concerns over press freedom and the use of stringent laws against media personnel in India.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Reserves Order on Bail Plea of NewsClick HR Head Amit Chakraborty
Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued notice despite opposition from the Delhi Police.
The case against NewsClick and its associates, including Purkayastha, stems from a series of raids linked to allegations highlighted in a New York Times article. The report suggested that NewsClick received funds to promote Chinese propaganda, a claim that has since spiraled into a full-blown legal battle involving accusations of undermining India’s sovereignty, unity, and security.
According to the FIR, the accused are alleged to have illicitly obtained substantial foreign funds, amounting to crores of rupees, over a five-year period. These funds were purportedly used in a manner that threatened national interests.
The FIR outlines-
“secret inputs suggest that substantial foreign funds were illegally funneled into India by both Indian and foreign entities.”
It further accuses NewsClick of receiving these funds through unlawful channels, thereby implicating them in activities against the Indian state.
The controversy deepens with the involvement of Neville Roy Singham, identified in the FIR as an active member of the Communist Party of China’s propaganda department. Singham is accused of channeling funds to NewsClick via a complex network of entities, raising questions about the extent of foreign influence on Indian media platforms.
This case has ignited a debate on the delicate balance between national security and the freedom of the press. The use of UAPA, a law designed to combat terrorism and threats to national security, against journalists and media houses has been met with criticism from various quarters. Advocates for press freedom argue that such measures could intimidate journalists and stifle dissenting voices, ultimately eroding the foundations of a democratic society.
Justice Sharma pointed out that the Court will have to issue notice in order to consider the Delhi Police’s reply.
“If I don’t issue notice, how will I look into your reply? How will I even read that… Why should I adopt a different procedure? What difference does it make if I issue notice,”
-the Court remarked.
Ultimately, the Court issued notice in the matter and listed the case for further consideration in July.
ALSO READ: NewsClick Withdraws Supreme Court Plea to Seek Relief from ITAT Over Income Tax Notice
The Delhi High Court’s request for a reply from the Delhi Police marks a crucial juncture in this ongoing saga. As the judiciary steps in to scrutinize the allegations and the basis of the UAPA charges, the outcome of this legal challenge could have far-reaching implications for media freedom, the application of anti-terrorism laws, and the role of foreign funding in shaping public discourse in India.
As the case unfolds, all eyes will be on the Delhi High Court’s handling of this contentious issue, which stands at the intersection of national security concerns and the imperative to safeguard democratic values, including the freedom of the press.
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
