Supreme Court Calls NewsClick Founder’s Arrest Invalid; Orders Releases (image-X/pslnational)
The Supreme Court has ordered the release of the chief editor of NewsClick, Prabir Purkayastha, who was arrested in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967. The court cited that in the case, the remand copy was not provided, making his arrest void.
The bench, composed of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, held that the grounds for the journalist’s arrest should be provided in writing to the accused after observing that a copy of the remand application was not given to Purkayastha, violating the principles of natural justice.
The bench added that Purkayastha can be released only after submitting surety and bail bonds since a chargesheet has already been filed in the case.
The bench questioned how the remand hearing was conducted without informing the accused’s lawyer in advance and, thereby, without an audience. The remand order was passed around 6 am, before the accused or his lawyers were informed of the grounds of the arrest, it added.
“Copy of the remand application was not provided to the appellant. This vitiates the arrest of the appellant following Pankaj Bansal case,” the order stated.
This verdict comes following a plea by the chief editor challenging his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police. On April 30, the apex court reserved its judgement in the case.
On October 3, 2023, Purkayastha was arrested under the UAPA after allegations of the news platform NewsClick receiving financial aid from Indian and foreign entities to propagate Chinese propaganda surfaced in a New York Times article. A series of raids were conducted, and an FIR was registered against Purkayastha for allegedly using the funds to “disrupt the sovereignty, unity, and security of India” in the case.
Along with NewsClick’s chief editor, its HR head, Amit Chakraborty, was also arrested by the police.
Both Chakraborty and Purkayastha challenged their arrest, remand, and the FIR filed against them in the Delhi High Court, arguing that it was illegal as they were not provided the grounds of the arrest, violating the Supreme Court’s judgement in the Pankaj Bansal case.
While the High Court rejected the argument, claiming that the March judgement was inapplicable to arrests made under the UAPA, the accused approached the top court. After becoming an approver for the prosecution, Chakraborty was released by the High Court. He also withdrew his plea before the SC against the arrest.
A hearing has been scheduled for May 31 regarding the framing of charges in the Delhi High Court after the state police filed a chargesheet against Purkayastha and NewsClick.
What Is the Pankaj Bansal Case?
In the Pankaj Bansal case, the top court had ordered the ED to provide a written copy of the grounds of arrest to the accused. The March judgement was passed after the court observed an inconsistency in the ED’s practice of providing grounds of arrest, which were sometimes in written form in some parts of the country while in others, it was informed verbally or the accused were allowed to read it only when in the presence of the authorities.
The court had observed that this practice made it difficult for the accused to remember the grounds of their arrest, especially when they were expansive, impacting the arrested individual’s ability to prepare for their defence.
