On Tuesday, February 20th, the Supreme Court postponed the hearing of a petition filed by NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha challenging his arrest and detention in the UAPA case until February 27th, which falls on the following Tuesday.
The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday (20th February) directed the Delhi Police to furnish a detailed medical report of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, who is currently detained under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and housed in Tihar Jail. The directive emerged amidst concerns over Purkayastha’s health, with the court expressing its displeasure over the administration’s reluctance to provide transparent medical records.
Also Read- Supreme Court: Chandigarh Mayor Poll Officer Altered Election Unlawfully, Lied To Us (lawchakra.in)
During the proceedings, Justice B.R. Gavai, addressing Additional Solicitor General (ASG) S.V. Raju, mandated,
“We request the learned ASG to place on record the report of the Medical Officer of the concerned prison with regard to the medical condition of the [petitioner].”
This instruction highlighted the court’s insistence on obtaining an unbiased assessment of Purkayastha’s health status directly from the jail’s medical officer.
The dialogue in the courtroom further revealed a critical examination of the administration’s integrity and competence. Justice Gavai pointedly remarked to the ASG, suggesting a deep-seated issue within the administration,
“If you’re so courageous, take action against your own officers.”
This comment came in response to the ASG’s hesitance to rely on medical reports from jail officers, implying a potential bias or influence exerted by the accused.
Justice Sandeep Mehta, echoing his colleague’s sentiment, found the ASG’s reservations peculiar, stating,
“Expressing displeasure, Justice Mehta commented that the ASG was making ‘a very strange statement’.”
This interaction underscored the judiciary’s expectation of transparency and accountability from the administration’s officers.
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, vehemently argued against the ASG’s suggestion for an alternative medical evaluation, questioning the logic behind doubting the jail’s medical officer’s report.
“If the man is residing there, what’s the point of saying ‘an appropriate report’?”,
Also Read- Supreme Court Sets Precedent: No Zoo Or Safari In Forests Without Judicial Approval (lawchakra.in)
Sibal contested, emphasizing the necessity of a straightforward and immediate health assessment from the facility where Purkayastha is detained.
The bench also highlighted its operational constraints, noting its inability to prioritize cases outside of its scheduled final hearings on Wednesdays and Thursdays. Despite this, the ASG proposed a Friday listing for the matter, a suggestion that Sibal strongly opposed due to the prolonged duration of the case.
“I’m going to oppose that, I’m sorry…I normally never oppose…this has been going on for too long,”
Sibal expressed, underscoring the urgency of addressing Purkayastha’s health concerns.
Sibal’s plea to the court was poignant, reflecting the gravity of Purkayastha’s situation.
“Time keeps clicking but I don’t get the news. The only thing we want right now is that this court should call for a medical report from jail superintendent. The man is 74-year-old and is in great difficulty,”
he stated, appealing for the court’s intervention to ensure the well-being of the detained NewsClick founder.
The Supreme Court’s firm stance against the ASG’s objections and its demand for a medical report not only highlights the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the rights of individuals under detention but also casts a critical eye on the administrative practices that hinder transparency and accountability. As the case progresses, the court’s actions reaffirm its dedication to upholding justice and human dignity, setting a precedent for the treatment of detainees and the responsibilities of those in power.
BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
In 2016, a complaint was filed by Singh regarding an article published by The Wire’s Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad Mahaprastha, titled “Dossier Call JNU “Den of Organised Sex Racket”; Students, Professors Allege Hate Campaign”. Singh alleged that the article implied she created a dossier portraying JNU as a “Den of Organised Sex Racket”, defaming her reputation. The complaint also accused the publication of not verifying the dossier’s authenticity and using it for monetary gain, initiating a hate campaign against her. In 2017, a Delhi metropolitan court summoned The Wire’s Editor Siddharth Bhatia and Deputy Editor Ajoy Ashirwad. However, in March 2023, the Delhi High Court dismissed the summoning order, stating that the article did not contain defamatory content against Singh.
Also Read: (Previous Report)
CASE TITLE
Case Title: Prabir Purkayastha v. State | Diary No. 42896 of 2023
Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal- Counsel for petitioner/Purkayastha
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju- Counsel for State
