The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the Delhi Police’s response to pleas of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and the portal’s human resources head Amit Chakravarty, challenging their arrest in the case against them under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). It listed the matter for the next hearing on October 30 when the court reopens after the Dusshera holidays.
The two moved the top court saying their arrest was illegal as they were not provided written grounds for it on October 3.
A bench of justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra initially sought to post the matter three weeks later but senior advocate Kapil Sibal requested an early hearing. “The petitioner [Purkayastha] is inside. He is 72.”
The Delhi high court on October 13 dismissed Purkayastha and Chakravarty’s pleas against their arrest. The two are accused of receiving foreign funds through Chinese firms. They cited the Supreme Court’s order in the Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India case on October 3 setting aside an arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The court made it mandatory for the Enforcement Directorate to provide grounds of arrest in writing.
The high court said such a requirement was applicable under PMLA and not UAPA, where the requirement is merely to inform. The two challenged this saying the principle laid down will be applicable to arrest under any law citing Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The article says, “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
{{/usCountry}}The high court said such a requirement was applicable under PMLA and not UAPA, where the requirement is merely to inform. The two challenged this saying the principle laid down will be applicable to arrest under any law citing Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The article says, “No person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such arrest nor shall he be denied the right to consult, and be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.”
{{/usCountry}}The two have sought a declaration of their arrest and subsequent police custody to be illegal. The high court pulled up the police for not providing the grounds for arrest. But it refused to set aside the arrest over this terming it a procedural infirmity.
The police claimed the news portal received ₹75 crore from a person in China for compromising the country’s integrity. The first information report in the case alleged the accused conspired with a group called Peoples Alliance for Democracy and Secularism to sabotage the 2019 general elections.
Solicitor-general Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the police in the high court, said Chinese firms Xiaomi and Vivo routed money into the portal via shell companies.
The Central Bureau of Investigation raided NewsClick’s premises over alleged violations of foreign funding.