The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by editor-in-chief of online news portal NewsClick, Prabir Purkayastha, challenging his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while reserving the judgement, asked questions as to how the remand proceedings were conducted.
The Bench orally observed that the remand order was clearly passed (at around 6 am) before Purkayastha or his counsel were informed as to why he was arrested.
It asked the counsel appearing for the Delhi police as to why no advance notice was given to Purkayastha’s lawyer about his remand, when it had 24 hours to proceed.
The Apex Court noted that there was no reason for haste as the accused could have been produced before a court at 10 am.
The Bench further inquired about the remand counsel and asked whether the remand could be granted without informing the accused of grounds of arrest.
The Apex Court orally observed that the principles of natural justice required that remand hearing should have been kept at 11 am. Justice has to be seen to be done also.
It further asked the need for the police to keep a legal aid counsel instead of informing the accused’s regular counsel.
Recently, the Delhi Police filed its charge sheet against Purkayastha and NewsClick in the case before a Delhi court, which took cognisance of the same on Tuesday. The matter will be heard by the trial court on May 31 for framing of charges.
Representing Purkayastha, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on Tuesday questioned how a digital portal could be a threat to sovereignty.
He argued that the Delhi High Court was wrong in holding that it was sufficient compliance of UAPA to orally communicate the grounds of arrest to Purkayastha (instead of conveying them in written form).
He added that this was contrary to the reasoning in the top court’s Pankaj Bansal judgment.
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hossain replied that detailed grounds of arrest were eventually forwarded to the accused.
However, the Apex Court noted that the counsel for Purkayastha was informed well after arrest, adding that the entire proceedings were without audience.
Hossain added that not furnishing written grounds of arrest in UAPA cases did not violate the Constitution. He asserted that the Pankaj Bansal judgment cannot be applied in such matters. He also stressed that custody (after remand) and arrest were not synonymous.
Sibal, however, maintained that the grounds of arrest cannot be withheld from the accused in any case.
The Court proceeded to reserve its verdict in the matter.
On February 16, the Delhi High Court issued notice to the Delhi Police on the plea by Purkayastha.
Despite opposition from the Delhi Police, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma issued the notice. Appearing for the police, Advocate Zoheb Hossain said that there has been a subsequent development in the case as one of the accused, former NewsClick Human Resource head Amit Chakraborty, has turned an approver. The Advocate added that the offences alleged were prima facie made out against the accused.
Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan who appeared for the NewsClick founder opposed the submission. Subsequently, Justice Swarana Kanta Sharma noted that the court will have to issue notice in order to consider the Delhi Police’s reply.
The court asked what difference does it make if it issues notice, adding that they need to read why they need to adopt a different procedure. Following, the court issued notice in the matter and listed the case for further consideration in July. Prabir Purkayasthan’s petition had been listed on four occasions but no notice was issued by the Court until today.
Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborty’s petitions challenging their arrest and remand were rejected by the High Court on October 13, 2023. The High Court’s order has been challenged before the Supreme Court and that appeal is still pending before the top court.
After a series of raids following allegations made in a New York Times article that NewsClick was being paid to boost Chinese propaganda, Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested.
The FIR stated that the accused illegally received crores of rupees in foreign funds and deployed the same with an intention to disrupt the sovereignty, unity and security of India. It added that secret inputs suggest that substantial foreign funds were illegally funneled into India by both Indian and foreign entities.