HC rejects NewsClick founder’s plea against arrest under UAPA

The Delhi high court on Friday affirmed the validity of the arrest and a city court’s order remanding NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and human resource head Amit Chakraborty to seven days in police custody in a case under India’s stringent anti-terror law.

The court said that the arrest of the two men was in accordance with the law since the grounds of arrest were conveyed to the them, and there appeared to be no procedural infirmity or violations of the provisions under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) or article 22(1) of the Constitution that mandates that arrested people have to be told why they’re being arrested.

The two men were arrested on October 3 by Delhi police under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC) after 400 police officials raiding around 30 locations across Delhi, Nodia, Gurugram, Mumbai and Ghaziabad and questioned 46 people, including journalists, freelancers, writers and satirists, for eight hours.

On Friday, a single-judge HC bench of justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that although UAPA did not ask the officer to inform the arrestee about the grounds of the arrest in writing, it would be advisable for the agencies to provide it in writing in the future after redacting sensitive material. “It is held that the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds, in written, are not mandated by the UAPA. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra), and also considering the stringent provisions of UAPA, it would be advisable that the respondent , henceforth, provide grounds of arrest in writing, though after redacting what in the opinion of the respondent would constitute “sensitive material”. This too would obviate, as held by the Supreme Court, any such challenge to the arrest, as made in the present case,” the court said.

The bench also ruled that top court’s verdict in M3M case (Pankaj Bansal v Union of India) -- wherein the apex court ruled on October 4 that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) must furnish the reasons of arrest to the accused in writing, in connection with a Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) case -- cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under the provisions of UAPA.

The court observed that the sensitivity of information gathered by investigating authorities under UAPA is of greater significance, with direct impact on issues related to national security. “Clearly, PMLA is an enactment for maintaining the internal law and order in relation to financial crimes and may or may not have relation to threats to the stability, sovereignty and integrity of this country. In other words, the sensitivity of the information/intelligence being gathered by the investigating authorities under UAPA is of a greater significance having direct impact on the issues relating to national security,” the court said.

On August 17, Delhi Police’s special cell registered a case under section 153A (promoting enmity) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code and sections 16 (terrorist act),17 (raising funds for terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), and 22C (offences by companies, societies or trusts) of UAPA.

This came days after an investigation published in The New York Times alleged that the portal was part of a global network that received money for pushing Chinese propaganda. The American newspaper said that millionaire Neville Roy Singham funded NewsClick, among other outlets across the globe, to sprinkle its coverage with Chinese government talking points.

The FIR alleged that Purkayastha allegedly conspired with a group named Peoples Alliance for Democracy and Secularism to sabotage the 2019 general elections and Chinese firms such as Xiaomi and Vivo illegally incorporated shell companies to infuse foreign funds to disrupt India’s sovereignty.

NewsClick has denied the charges.

Though his advocate Kapil Sibal, Purkayastha argued that although the law mandated the probe agency to supply the grounds at the time of arrest, they were not provided to his client.

Sibal said that the allegations the FIR of receiving money for pro-China propaganda and conspiring with a group named PADS to sabotage the 2019 general elections were “false”. “Not a penny has come from China,” Sibal added.

Chakraborty, appearing through advocate Rohit Sharma, told the court earlier this week that he was not responsible for the content published on the website and just performed administrative tasks.

The Delhi Police, appearing through solicitor general Tushar Mehta, opposed the plea, contending that the arrests were legal as they were informed about the grounds of the arrest. Mehta said that the Delhi Police was not a party to the M3M verdict and was thus unaware of the ruling, adding that although the verdict was pronounced on October 3, it was uploaded on the top court’s website on October 4. “Judgment binds us from the day it comes to our knowledge,” added the SG, defending the arrest.

The news portal first ran into trouble in 2021 when the ED registered a case based on a FIR by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offence Wing in 2020. The allegations pertained to overvaluing of shares, diverting funds, and violation of FDI regulations.

NewsClick has repeatedly rejected all charges, saying that proceedings against it were a “blatant attempt” to muzzle the free press.

“The allegations in the FIR, apart from being ex facie untenable and bogus, have been made time and again, in investigations by three government agencies – the Enforcement Directorate, the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police, and the income tax department. None of these investigations led to any charge sheets or complaints over the last three years. In fact, Prabir was granted interim protection in these investigations. The latest FIR has been registered only to circumvent this protection and carry out illegal arrests under the draconian UAPA,” it said in a statement last week.