The Supreme Court Yesterday (April 30th) reserved its judgment on the plea by Prabir Purkayastha, the editor-in-chief of online news portal NewsClick, who has challenged his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court reserved its judgment on the appeal brought by Prabir Purkayastha, the editor-in-chief of the online news outlet NewsClick. Purkayastha has contested his detention and subsequent judicial remand by the Delhi Police, alleging violations under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Before concluding the hearing, Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta of the Bench questioned the procedures followed during the remand proceedings.
The Justices noted that the remand order was apparently issued at an unusually early hour (around 6 AM) before any notification was given to Purkayastha or his legal representation regarding the reasons for his arrest. During the proceedings, the Court intensely questioned the Delhi police’s counsel regarding the lack of prior notice to Purkayastha’s attorney concerning his remand.
Justice Mehta inquired,
“Why did you not inform his lawyer in advance? Please tell us. You had 24 hours. What was the haste? You could have produced him at 10 AM! Who is the remand counsel and why was his lawyer not informed? Can remand be granted without informing accused of grounds of arrest?”
Adding to this, Justice Gavai remarked,
“Principles of natural justice require that it (remand hearing) should have been kept at 11 AM. Justice has to be seen to be done also. What was the need to keep legal aid counsel instead of informing (his regular counsel)?”
Purkayastha faced charges under the UAPA and was arrested on October 3, 2023, subsequent to a series of investigations triggered by a New York Times report alleging that NewsClick received payments to promote Chinese propaganda. Alongside Purkayastha, Amit Chakraborty, the HR head of NewsClick, was also detained in connection with the same case.
Following the upholding of the trial court’s decision to remand him to police custody by the Delhi High Court, Purkayastha escalated his challenge to the Supreme Court.
Representing Purkayastha, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal questioned the potential threat a digital platform could pose to national sovereignty. In response, Justice Mehta observed,
“Digital media can be used for many things. That blanket statement may not be correct, it depends on how the information is disseminated.”
Sibal argued that the Delhi High Court erroneously concluded that verbally communicating the arrest grounds to Purkayastha constituted adequate adherence to the UAPA, contradicting the Supreme Court’s verdict in the Pankaj Bansal case.
“Remand application may or may not contain the grounds of arrest. Even FIR was not given to us. So what is the point of saying remand copy was given to us? Not telling me grounds, is that sufficient compliance?”
–Sibal questioned.
Representing the Delhi police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hossain countered that the arrest details were eventually conveyed to the accused, albeit after the remand order was issued.
Hossain contended that omitting to provide written arrest grounds in UAPA cases does not breach the Constitution and that the Pankaj Bansal judgment is inapplicable in such instances. He emphasized that custody following remand and the initial arrest are distinct.
Sibal maintained that withholding the arrest grounds from the accused is unacceptable under any circumstance.
“How will understand the information if I am only conveyed it orally? What is the constitutional basis of hiding it? Information by itself cannot be withheld. That is all,”
-he asserted.
After extensive deliberation, the Court chose to withhold its ruling on the matter.
According to the First Information Report (FIR), Purkayastha allegedly received substantial amounts of foreign funds illicitly, which were purportedly utilized to
“disrupt the sovereignty, unity, and security of India.”
The FIR further alleges that considerable foreign funds were illicitly channeled into India by various Indian and foreign entities.
Initially, both Purkayastha and Chakraborty sought legal redress from the Delhi High Court, challenging their arrests, remands, and the charges outlined in the FIR under the UAPA. They argued that their detentions and subsequent remands were unlawful as they were not provided with the arrest grounds, contravening the Supreme Court’s decision in the Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors (M3M case).
Nonetheless, the High Court dismissed their pleas, stating that the Pankaj Bansal judgment does not directly apply to UAPA-related detentions, leading them to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Notably, Chakraborty has since agreed to cooperate with the prosecution and has withdrawn his complaint regarding the arrest.
The Delhi Police recently filed its chargesheet against Prabir Purkayastha and NewsClick. A Delhi court on Tuesday took cognisance of this chargesheet.
The matter is reportedly listed before the trial court on May 31 for framing of charges.
CASE TITLE:
Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on NewsClick Case
FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES
