The Delhi High Court on Friday dismissed pleas moved by NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha and HR head Amit Chakravarty challenging their arrest and remand in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case in connection with alleged foreign funding case, reports The Indian Express.
Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3, following searches across 30 locations connected with the online news portal and its journalists over allegations that it received money for pro-China propaganda.
The duo had contended before the court on Friday that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to them when they were apprehended and the trial court order of remand was passed in the absence of their lawyers.
A single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, after submissions of the remand application, said, “It appears that the substratum of the allegations which would comprise the reasons for arrest is indeed contained in the said application.”
The judge said that there was no “procedural infirmity” or violation of legal or constitutional provisions in relation to the arrest and the remand order is sustainable in law, and the grounds of arrest needed to be “informed” to the arrestee within 24 hours and furnishing of such grounds, in written, was not mandated by the UAPA, reported PTI.
The court, however, said it would be “advisable” that the police henceforth, provide grounds of arrest in writing after redacting “sensitive material”.
“The petition, being devoid of any merit, along with pending applications, is dismissed,” said the court in its order passed on the petition by the portal’s founder.
“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,” the court further stated.
The court noted that offences under the UAPA directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security and grounds of arrest only need to be informed.
“Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (the case of) 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, however, added, as quoted by PTI.
The two had moved the high court challenging their arrest as well as the seven-day police custody and sought immediate release as an interim relief.
On October 10, a trial court had sent the duo to 10-day judicial custody.
Among allegations detailed by the Special Cell in its FIR against Purkayastha are attempts to show Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as “not parts of India”; discrediting the Indian government’s fight against Covid-19; funding the farmers’ agitation; and “putting up a spirited defence of legal cases” against Chinese telecom companies such as Xiaomi and Vivo, reported IE.
Apart from Purkayastha, the FIR is also against rights activist Gautam Navlakha, who is under house arrest in the Elgaar Parishad case, and US-based businessman Neville Roy Singham.