Hearing NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha’s petition against his arrest in a UAPA case, the Supreme Court noted that the remand order was issued before his lawyer was served a remand application, LiveLaw reported.

Appearing before a bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, Purkayastha’s counsel Kapil Sibal reportedly argued that both the UAPA case as well as the Enforcement Directorate’s Enforcement Case Information Report were malafide. He said it was difficult to understand how a digital portal could affect the unity and territorial integrity of India, according to LiveLaw.

The lawyer argued that NewsClick had been accused of inciting the farmers’ protests and discrediting the Centre’s management of the Covid pandemic. “Accepting what they said in the FIR, no offence under UAPA is made out. That I am against the policies of the government, that I am helping farmers, that I am criticising the government, how can these be UAPA offences,” he asked, according to LiveLaw.

Purkayastha’s lawyer also pointed out anomalies in the procedure followed at the time of the arrest and alleged that the prosecution had taken varying positions before courts of law. “They have taken different stands. In affidavit before trial court, they say grounds of arrest were informed at the time of arrest and everything is stated in the arrest memo. In high court, they say it is not the requirement of law that the time of arrest and date of arrest are to be mentioned in the remand application and that it was only needed to be mentioned in the case diary. The grounds of arrest have not been filed in any court till date,” he said, according to LiveLaw.

Sibal reportedly referred to the Pankaj Bansal case which held that supplying grounds of arrest in writing is necessary for the protection of constitutional rights. “Even the FIR was not given to us. We moved an application. They objected to that.”

Meanwhile, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said Purkayastha’s lawyer was informed and the grounds of arrest were in the remand application.

The Delhi Police said there is no requirement to furnish the grounds of arrest under UAPA and PMLA in writing and referred to section 50 of the CrPC.

Verdictum reported that the court has reserved its judgement on Purkayastha’s plea after hearing arguments.

Meanwhile, a Delhi court Tuesday took cognisance of the UAPA chargesheet filed against Purkayastha. According to a Times of India report, additional sessions judge Hardeep Kaur fixed May 31 for arguments on framing of charges. 

Background of the case

NewsClick was raided by the Enforcement Directorate in February 2021 in a “money laundering case pertaining to foreign funding”. In September 2021, it was the subject of a “survey” by the Income Tax department. Newslaundry was simultaneously the target of a similar I-T “survey” too.

In August 2023, the New York Times alleged that NewsClick was among Chinese propaganda outlets funded by American tech mogul Neville Roy Singham. Singham subsequently said the NYT report was an “innuendo-laden hit piece”.

In October, the Delhi police searched the homes of multiple journalists with ties to the organisation in connection with a fresh case filed under the UAPA. Their electronic devices were seized. 

The police also arrested Purkayastha and NewsClick HR head Amit Chakraborty. The FIR in the case, which also named incarcerated activist Gautam Navlakha, stated that Purkayastha, Chakraborty and Singham had allegedly discussed “how to create a map of India without Kashmir and to show Arunachal Pradesh as a disputed area”.

A trial court remanded Purkayastha and Chakraborty to police custody – a decision that was subsequently upheld by the Delhi High Court. Their judicial custody was also extended.

In November, the Enforcement Directorate summoned Singham in the case. The Delhi police sought “financial” details of five companies linked to him in a letter to the US authorities.

In December, NewsClick’s bank accounts were frozen. The news outlet called the action an “administrative-legal siege” and said it has been unable to make any bank payments since the evening of December 18. 

In January, Chakraborty was allowed to turn approver in the case. In an application seeking pardon, Chakravarty claimed he was in possession of “material information” and was willing to disclose it to the Delhi police.

NewsClick has repeatedly denied the charges against it. 

Newslaundry has reported on the police and agency action against NewsClick from the start. Check out our reportage here.

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.