NewsClick’s Editor-in-Chief, Prabir Purkayastha, and its Human Resources head, Amit Chakraborty, have moved the Supreme Court, challenging the Delhi High Court’s verdict that validated their arrest by the Delhi Police. The duo was taken into custody under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) over allegations of receiving Chinese funding to further anti-national propaganda.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the NewsClick officials, urgently mentioned the matter before Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud. Emphasizing the urgency, Sibal stated,
“This is the NewsClick matter…the journalists are in the police custody…a 70-year old man…“.
Responding to Sibal’s plea, CJI Chandrachud instructed him to circulate the papers and assured,
“he will take a call on the listing.”
The backdrop of these arrests involves a series of raids conducted at NewsClick’s office and the residences of its editors and reporters. The arrests, executed on October 3, were a result of allegations, as highlighted in a New York Times article, suggesting that NewsClick was being paid to amplify Chinese propaganda. Following several hours of interrogation, Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested and subsequently remanded to seven days of police custody on October 4.
The FIR against them alleges that the accused had illicitly received substantial amounts in foreign funds with the intent to
“disrupt the sovereignty, unity, and security of India.”
The FIR further elaborates that secret inputs indicated that significant foreign funds were covertly funneled into India by both Indian and foreign entities. NewsClick allegedly received these funds illicitly over a span of five years. The funds were purportedly deceitfully introduced by Neville Roy Singham, who is allegedly an active member of the Communist Party of China’s propaganda department, through a sophisticated network of entities. In response to these allegations, NewsClick has consistently denied any wrongdoing.
The primary contention raised by the petitioners against their arrest was that it was flawed since they weren’t provided with the grounds for arrest in writing. They also claimed that they weren’t given a copy of the FIR until they approached the court and received an order mandating its provision. In their defense, the petitioners cited the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which annulled arrests by the Enforcement Directorate in a case due to the absence of written arrest grounds.
However, the Delhi High Court, in its judgment, clarified that the Pankaj Bansal case, which was rendered in the context of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, was not applicable to the UAPA. The High Court held that the arrests of the accused were “legal and valid.”
