E-Paper
SC quashes arrest of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha
Purkayastha was accused of receiving foreign funds through Chinese firms to compromise India’s stability and integrity
The Supreme Court on Wednesday quashed the arrest of online news portal NewsClick’s founder Prabir Purkayastha and directed his release on bail in a terror case, highlighting serious procedural lapses by the Delhi Police and underscoring the fundamental right of people to be informed of the grounds of arrest, as mandated by the Constitution.
Delivering a scathing critique of the manner in which Purkayastha was arrested on October 3, 2023, and was subsequently remanded to police custody under the Unlawful Activities(Prevention) Act, (UAPA), a bench of justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta lamented that investigators resorted to a “charade” of informing Pukayastha’s legal team while some other lawyer was kept present in the trial court by the police purportedly to provide legal assistance to him.
“Apparently, this entire exercise was done in a clandestine manner and was nothing but a blatant attempt to circumvent the due process of law; to confine the accused to police custody without informing him the grounds on which he has been arrested; deprive the accused of the opportunity to avail the services of the legal practitioner of his choice so as to oppose the prayer for police custody remand, seek bail and also to mislead the court,” said an anguished bench.
Purkayastha was accused of receiving foreign funds through Chinese firms with the alleged intent to compromise India’s stability and integrity. He initially challenged the validity of his arrest in the Delhi high court, which was dismissed on October 13, 2023. The Supreme Court’s intervention came after Purkayastha’s legal team, led by senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Siddharth Aggarwal, highlighted significant procedural violations in his arrest and detention by Delhi Police’s special cell.
To be sure, the police can seek to arrest Purkayastha again, citing the gravity of charges against him. However, as the charge sheet has already been filed in the case which connote conclusion of the probe, the police would have to substantiate why it would want Purkayastha arrested again.
Despite an application for a copy of the FIR, the court noted, this was not provided to Purkayastha until after his remand order was passed a day after his arrest, undermining the legality of the arrest and circumventing the due process of law.
The bench held that by failing to communicate the grounds of Purkayastha’s arrest in writing, the Delhi Police breached his fundamental right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which safeguards the right of individuals to be informed of the reasons for their detention.
“The right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand,” the 42-page judgment stressed.
Rejecting the submissions of additional solicitor general SV Raju, who represented the Delhi Police, that Purkayastha wasorally informed about the “reasons of arrest”, the court held that an investigating officer must supply the “grounds of arrest” in writing because the latter could only explain why a person has been arrested and he could then defend himself against custodial remand and seek bail.
The bench remained mindful that a charge sheet filed recently by the Delhi Police sought to link Purkayastha with an alleged conspiracy to act against the sovereignty of India. But the court asserted that the “mere fact that a charge sheet has been filed in the matter would not validate the illegality and the unconstitutionality committed at the time of arresting the accused and the grant of initial police custody remand to the accused.”
At the same time, acknowledging that the charge sheet had been filed, the bench directed Purkayastha’s release on bail upon furnishing the necessary bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.
Later in the day, the trial court released Purkayastha on bail upon furnishing a personal bond of ₹1 lakh and two sureties of the same amount. It directed him not to issue public statements on the merits of the case or contact any witnesses or the approver, namely the portal’s human resource head Amit Chakravarty.
In the detailed judgment, the bench also declared that both the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and the UAPA require that the grounds of arrest be communicated to the accused in writing. The court emphasised that this requirement is rooted in Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which protects people’s right to know why they are being detained.
The clarification came after ASG (additional solicitor general) AV Raju contended that UAPA cases are not covered under the Supreme Court’s October 3, 2023, judgment in the Pankaj Bansal case, which mandated that the Enforcement Directorate must supply the written grounds of arrest to accused under the PMLA.
Rejecting the law officer’s argument, the top court noted that the language in Section 19(1) of the PMLA and Section 43B(1) of the UAPA is identical regarding the need to inform the grounds of arrest. This uniformity in statutory language means that the interpretation made in the case of Pankaj Bansal should apply equally to cases under the UAPA, it said.
“Resultantly, there is no doubt in the mind of the court that any person arrested for allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest,” declared the bench.
It underscored that the provision requiring communication of arrest grounds is a critical constitutional safeguard and must be uniformly applied to ensure transparency and fairness because this information would be the only effective means for the arrested person to consult his advocate and oppose the police custody remand and to seek bail.
“Any other interpretation would tantamount to diluting the sanctity of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India. The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this court,” it added.
