GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 30, reserved its judgement on the plea by Prabir Purkayastha, editor-in-chief of the online news portal NewsClick. He had challenged his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A Bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta grilled the counsel for the Delhi Police regarding the manner in which the remand proceedings were conducted. The Bench questioned why Purkayastha's lawyer was not informed about the remand in advance, given that the remand order was passed at around 6 AM before Purkayastha or his counsel was informed about the grounds for arrest.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
"Why did you not inform his lawyer in advance? Please tell us. You had 24 hours. What was the haste? You could have produced him at 10 AM! Who is the remand counsel and why was his lawyer not informed? Can remand be granted without informing accused of grounds of arrest?" Justice Mehta asked.
Purkayastha was arrested on October 3, 2023, following a series of raids amid allegations made in a New York Times article that NewsClick was being funded to promote Chinese propaganda. The Delhi Police subsequently charged him under the UAPA, claiming that he had received substantial foreign funds with an intent to "disrupt the sovereignty, unity, and security of India."
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, questioned the legality of his arrest, arguing that the grounds for arrest were not properly communicated to him, contrary to the Supreme Court's judgement in the Pankaj Bansal case. Sibal pointed out that the remand application did not contain the grounds for arrest, and the FIR was not provided.
He further argued that withholding written grounds for arrest violates the principle of natural justice. "How will I understand the information if I am only conveyed it orally? What is the constitutional basis of hiding it? Information by itself cannot be withheld," Sibal stated.
ALSO READ: LS Elections 2024: Phases 1 And 2 Voter Turnout Exceeds 66%
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and advocate Zoheb Hossain, representing the Delhi Police, countered that detailed grounds of arrest were eventually given to Purkayastha. However, Justice Gavai noted that this information was only provided after the remand order was passed, questioning the timing and fairness of the process.
The Court reserved its verdict in the case after hearing arguments from both sides. Purkayastha's arrest and remand were previously challenged in the Delhi High Court, which upheld the trial court's decision. The appeal then came to the Supreme Court.
