Is Delhi Police Special Cell Facing Criticism For Slow Progress In NewsClick Case?

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

On 23rd February, Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pawan Kumar criticized the Delhi Police Special Cell for the sluggish pace of the investigation into the NewsClick case. The case involves allegations of illegal funding from China through the United States under the UAPA, with NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and HR head Amit Chakraborty detained for nearly 140 days. ASJ Kumar expressed dismay at the limited arrests made and granted a 20-day extension for filing the chargesheet, questioning the efficacy of the investigation.

NEW DELHI: On 23rd February, the Delhi Police Special Cell faced criticism from Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pawan Kumar for the slow progress in the investigation of the NewsClick case. The case, which has seen NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and HR head Amit Chakraborty behind bars for around 140 days, involves allegations of receiving illegal funding from China through the United States, under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

ASJ Kumar stated the limited scope of arrests made in the case, questioning the effectiveness of the investigation given the gravity of the charges. The inquiry into the alleged anti-India activities led to only two arrests over 150 days, prompting the judge to inquire about the possibility of more suspects being involved.

Additional Sessions Judge (ASJ) Pawan Kumar pulled up the Delhi Police Special Cell on Friday over the slow pace of investigation in the NewsClick case in which founder Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources head Amit Chakraborty have been in jail for approximately 140 days.

“Such a large conspiracy and you have arrested just two people? You caught no one else in 150 days…,” the judge said.

The court was informed that one of the accused, Chakraborty, had agreed to become an approver in the case. Despite this development, the Delhi Police Special Cell requested an additional 30 days to file the chargesheet, an extension from the previously granted two-month period by ASJ Hardeep Kaur, which allowed for a chargesheet filing deadline of February 29.

“…one person has turned approver, is the other accused Superman who did all this alone? Will you be arresting more suspects?” ASJ Kumar asked the prosecution, flagging that just two arrests were made in 150 days despite alleged anti-India activities being investigated.

ASJ Kumar, while granting a 20-day extension beyond the 150-day mark, questioned the assurance of the chargesheet’s completion within this new timeframe. The judicial custody of Purkayastha and Chakraborty was also extended by 21 days.

The Special Cell justified the extension request by highlighting the extensive nature of the investigation, including the examination of 4 lakh emails, 100 digital documents, and the involvement of suspects outside India. The agency argued that the absence of immediate arrests did not negate the existence of a conspiracy.

“Why could this investigation not be completed till now…What is the guarantee that you will file the chargesheet in the next 30 days?” said ASJ Kumar while granting an extension of 20 days from February 29 – when 150 days would have elapsed after the arrest.

However, ASJ Kumar pointed out potential lapses in the investigation, emphasizing the risk of evidence tampering if suspects are not timely apprehended. The defense for Purkayastha, led by Advocate Arshdeep Khurana, noted that this was the fourth investigation against the accused by different agencies, all of which had previously granted interim protection from the high court.

Advocate Arshdeep Khurana representing Purkayastha cited that this was the fourth agency that was investigating allegations against the accused. The other agencies are the Economic Offences Wing and the Enforcement Directorate – in these cases, the accused have been granted interim protection from the high court. The income tax department had also raided Purkayastha’s house in 2021, his advocate said. “They have all this material for the past two years. The court must ask them what they have done in the last two months,” Khurana added.

“You are saying money was used for anti-national activities…that is why the UAPA was invoked. Since the money aspect is being investigated by other agencies, only the anti-national element is to be investigated now,” ASJ Kumar said. “Had you utilised the 150 days properly, you would probably not need the 30-day extension,” he added.

The Special Cell’s FIR against Purkayastha accuses NewsClick of engaging in activities that undermine India’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including portraying Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as separate from India, discrediting the Government’s COVID-19 response, supporting the farmers’ agitation, and defending Chinese telecom companies in legal battles.