The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of Delhi police on the two special leave petitions (SLPs) filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and the organisation’s HR head Amit Chakraborty challenging their arrests and police remand for alleged offences under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
A bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, while issuing notices to the Delhi police, posted the matter for further hearing to October 30.
Initially, Justice Gavai said the court would grant three weeks’ time for the respondent to file their response. But senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Purkayastha, said: “That will be too long. The man is 72 years old and has been inside, we will serve dasti (notice from the petitioners’ side),” Sibal said.
The bench agreed to list the matter after a short date on October 30 by which time the Delhi police is expected to file its response.
Chakraborty was represented by senior advocate Devadatt Kamat.
The duo have filed the SLPs challenging the concurrent orders passed by a single
judge of Delhi High Court on October 13 and an earlier order of a trial court refusing to quash their arrests and remand.
Earlier on October 13, Delhi High Court single judge Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had refused to interfere with the arrest of Purkayastha and Chakraborty on the ground that “the offences which are alleged fall within the ambit of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security”.
Purkayastha and NewsClick have stoutly denied the allegations and accused the government of adopting a vindictive approach against the media house.
Purkayastha and Chakraborty were arrested on October 3 after the special cell of Delhi police conducted massive raids on the news portal’s office and the residential premises of its top echelons for alleged anti-national activities. The Delhi police had accused the organisation of receiving funds illegally from organisations like the People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism to sabotage the 2019 elections and also getting illegal funds to project Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir as not being part of India.
The high court had rejected the plea that the arrests and subsequent remand were illegal.
Purkayastha and Chakraborty contended that the Delhi police’s special cell had not furnished them with the necessary grounds of arrest and they also cited the Supreme Court ruling on October 3 in another matter related to the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).
However, Justice Gedela had observed in his 51-page judgment: “…After examining the entire issue in the right perspective, it appears as of now that the grounds of arrest were indeed conveyed to the petitioner, as soon as may be, after the arrest and as such, there does not appear to be any procedural infirmity or violation of the provisions of the Section 43B of the UAPA or the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as such, the arrest are in accordance with law.”
He added: “Having regard to the admission of facts, contradictions between the pleadings and the arguments addressed before this Court in respect …of the impugned remand order, this Court is of the considered opinion that the remand order is sustainable in law in the given circumstances. The petition, being devoid of any merit, along with pending applications, is dismissed.”
