The Supreme Court of India, on Monday, witnessed a significant turn in the Newsclick case involving the news portal’s founder Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakraborty. Chakraborty, who had challenged his arrest by the Delhi Police, opted to withdraw his plea following his decision to become an approver in the case.
The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta, was initially set to hear special leave petitions by Purkayastha and Chakraborty, challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision that upheld their arrests. These arrests were made under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) over allegations of receiving Chinese funding to promote anti-national propaganda.
During the hearing, Amit Chakraborty’s lawyer informed the bench of his client’s intention to withdraw the petition. This development followed a Delhi court’s decision last week allowing Amit Chakraborty to turn approver in the case and granting him a pardon. Chakraborty had expressed his willingness to disclose information related to the case in December. Additional Solicitor General SV Raju responded,
“Let him withdraw if that’s what he wants. Insofar as the other matter is concerned, it will have to be re-heard.”
The petitioners had questioned the legality of their arrest, contending that the criminal charges, including those under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, and 22 of the UAPA, as well as Sections 153A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, were not tenable. They argued that the grounds of arrest were not supplied at the time of Purkayastha’s arrest, citing the Supreme Court’s Pankaj Bansal ruling, which quashed arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the Enforcement Directorate for not furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing.
Also read- Courts Can’t Direct Government To Notify Law Passed By Parliament: Supreme Court (lawchakra.in)
The Delhi Police, however, maintained that the requirements under Article 22 of the Constitution were met, as the two were informed of the reasons for their arrest. They argued that the Pankaj Bansal ruling did not apply to offences under the UAPA, as it was specific to the context of the PMLA.
The case against Newsclick gained attention after Delhi Police conducted raids on the residences of journalists associated with the news organization, known for its critical coverage of the Indian government. The police alleged that the portal received funds for pro-China propaganda, following a report by The New York Times about funding from US billionaire Neville Roy Singham, accused of supporting China’s campaigns. Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested under the UAPA and are currently in judicial custody.
On October 13, the Delhi High Court dismissed their pleas challenging the trial court order remanding them to seven days of police custody in the UAPA case. Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the police remand order, stating that the grounds of arrest had been conveyed to them, and there was no procedural infirmity or violation under UAPA or the Constitution.
This case underscores the complexities surrounding the application of UAPA and the balance between national security concerns and the rights of individuals. The Supreme Court’s handling of the case and the decision of Chakraborty to turn approver add another layer to this high-profile legal battle.
