On Friday, a single-judge bench led by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked questions about the arrest and detention of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, and the company's HR head, Amit Chakraborty, in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
In the remand application filed by the Delhi Police, the High Court voiced reservations about the lack of grounds for their arrest.
NewsClick, along with Purkayastha and Chakraborty, is accused of promoting Chinese propaganda in India.
Arrest and lack of grounds
During the hearing, one of the main points of dispute was the Delhi Police's failure to disclose reasons for the detention of Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborty in their remand plea. The Delhi High Court's Justice Tushar Rao Gedela highlighted that this omission appeared to contravene a Supreme Court decision, sparking debate regarding the transparency and constitutionality of the arrests.
"The grounds for arrest are not disclosed in the remand application." "A Supreme Court decision is staring you down," the judge observed.
Raids and charges
Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborty were apprehended following a series of raids undertaken by law enforcement agencies around the country. These actions were taken in reaction to allegations in a New York Times report that NewsClick was involved in the promotion of Chinese propaganda. The case gained national and international attention quickly.
Initial detention and a copy of the FIR
The suspects were first detained by police for seven days. Following that, they went a Delhi court to seek a copy of the First Information Report (FIR) relating to their case, and their request was granted, marking a critical step in their legal defense because it permitted them to challenge the FIR itself before the High Court.
Following the lower court's decision, Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborty decided to appeal to the Delhi High Court. Their plea seeks to vacate the FIR and address their concerns about their arrest, imprisonment, and the initiation of UAPA procedures against them.
What happened during the court hearing?
"The remand application is notable for its lack of arrest grounds." "The counsel have not been given an opportunity to present their case," the judge observed.
Prabir Purkayastha's lawyer, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, expressed severe reservations about the arrest and detention proceedings. Sibal contended that the detention order was faulty and unsustainable, citing the omission to disclose the grounds for arrest and the failure to notify him of the remand hearing. He also mentioned the recent Supreme Court order in which the top court explicitly advised the ED that when initiating an arrest under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the grounds for arrest should be made clear.
"The order is unjustifiable. Why should I be detained? If the (remand) order is wrong on the surface," Sibal argued.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, sought that the case be heard on Monday, implying that the case is receiving undue attention.
"There are features that go beyond what the eye can see. I strongly urge you to have the hearing on Monday. They came to this court after a three to four-day hiatus. If I am unable to get a weekday, I will defer to the wisdom of my Lords," Mehta added.
Further hearings have been scheduled on October 9 by the Delhi High Court. The Delhi Police has also been ordered to respond to the petition and submit the case diary.
The court has also stressed the need of safeguarding Amit Chakraborty's physical well-being while he is in prison, given his impairment.
0 Comments