Can money laundering proceedings survive once the FIR behind them has been quashed? That question now reaches the Supreme Court in the NewsClick money laundering case, where the Enforcement Directorate has challenged the Delhi High Court order that ended the case against founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
New Delhi: Challenging the Delhi High Court judgment that quashed the FIR and the connected money laundering proceedings against digital news portal NewsClick and its founder-editor Prabir Purkayastha, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has approached the Supreme Court [Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd.].
The appeal is Diary No. 63217/2026, and it takes aim at the judgment Justice Neena Bansal Krishna of the Delhi High Court delivered on May 29, 2026. Which Bench will hear it, and the next date of hearing, are not stated.
An FIR, and a money laundering case built on it
The Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police registered FIR No. 116/2020 in August 2020 under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. It concerned foreign direct investment received by PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited, which operates NewsClick, from the United States-based Worldwide Media Holdings LLC. The High Court quashed it.
The ED had registered its Enforcement Case Information Report under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), treating the offences in that FIR as the predicate offences. The High Court held that once the FIR could not stand, the money laundering proceedings founded on it could not survive either, and described their continuation as:
“a gross abuse of the process of law.”
A different case, not before the Court
Only the EOW FIR and the ED case are before the Supreme Court in this appeal. A separate case registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell against NewsClick and Purkayastha under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act is independent of both and is not the subject of the appeal.
What the agencies alleged
According to the investigating agencies, the investment was structured to circumvent restrictions on foreign investment in digital news media, and some of the funds were diverted towards salaries, consultancy fees, rent and other expenses. These are allegations of the investigating agencies, and they remain untested in trial. The High Court found that the allegations did not disclose the offences invoked.
What the appeal puts before the Court
The appeal raises the question of whether PMLA proceedings can continue once the predicate FIR has been quashed, along with the High Court’s findings on the foreign investment allegations. The Supreme Court has not yet expressed any view on the merits, and the presumption of innocence continues to apply to Purkayastha and NewsClick. The ED’s grounds of challenge are not stated in the material available.
Case Title: Directorate of Enforcement v. M/s PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt. Ltd. [Diary No. 63217/2026]
Order Under Challenge: Judgment of the Delhi High Court (Justice Neena Bansal Krishna), May 29, 2026
Date of Filing Reported: October 10, 2026
Appearances: not stated