Supreme Court issues notice to Delhi Police on pleas filed by NewsClick founder and HR head against arrest under UAPA

Satya Prakash

Advertisement

New Delhi, October 19

The Supreme Court on Thursday issued notice to the Delhi Police on petitions filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and its HR head Amit Chakravarty challenging their arrest and subsequent police remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) – an anti-terror law.

Directing the Delhi Police to respond to the petitions filed by Purkayastha and Chakravarty, a Bench led by Justice BR Gavai posted the matter for October 30.

The order came after senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat, representing Purkayastha and Chakravarty, respectively, urged the Bench to hear the matter urgently as the accused have been in jail since their arrest on October 3.

Purkayastha and Chakraborty have challenged a Delhi High Court verdict dismissing their petitions against their arrest and remand under the UAPA.

The top court had on Monday agreed to list the matter urgently after Sibal mentioned it before the bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. On Wednesday, the Justice Gavai-led Bench had posted the matter for hearing on Thursday, saying it needed to go through the files.

Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 after a case was lodged by the Delhi Police against the duo under UAPA for allegedly receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda. According to the FIR, a large amount of funds to the news portal allegedly came from China to “disrupt the sovereignty of India” and cause disaffection against the country.

Purkayastha conspired with a group — People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism — to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 general election, police alleged. On October 10, the trial court sent them to judicial custody for 10 days.

The Delhi High Court had last week dismissed petitions filed by Purkayastha and Chakravarty challenging their arrest and subsequent police remand under stringent provisions of the UAPA.

Holding that there was no “procedural infirmity” or violation of legal or constitutional provisions in relation to the arrest and the remand order was sustainable in law, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had rejected their petitions for being “devoid of any merit”.

The high court had sought to emphasise that offences under the UAPA directly impacted the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and were of utmost importance since they affected national security.

However, in view of the recent Supreme Court verdict in Pankaj Bansal’s case, the high court had said it would be “advisable” that the police henceforth provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused after redacting “sensitive material”.