NewsClick Case: Prabir Purkayastha, Amit Chakraborty move Supreme Court challenging arrests under UAPA law

The NewsClick case reached the Supreme Court’s doors as Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources head Amit Chakraborty filed a Special Leave Petition challenging the verdict of the Delhi High Court. The High Court had previously upheld their arrest by the Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on charges related to alleged Chinese funding for the promotion of anti-national propaganda.

Appearing for the petiioner, senior advocate Kapil Sibal brought this matter to the Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud’s attention, seeking an urgent listing for the case. “This is the NewsClick matter…the journalists are in police custody…a 70-year old man….” said Sibal.

Chief Justice Chandrachud requested Sibal to circulate the relevant documents and assured that a decision on the listing would be made.

Also Read: NewsClick case: Delhi HC junks pleas by Prabir Purkayastha, HR head challenging arrest under UAPA

The High Court, under the jurisdiction of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, dismissed the petition on October 13, considering the arrests as lawful and valid.

The arrests were initiated by the Delhi Police on October 3, following extensive raids conducted at the NewsClick’s office and the residences of its editors and reporters.

The argument presented in the petition challenges the validity of the arrests on the grounds that the individuals were not provided with a written explanation for their arrest. It wasn’t until they approached the court and obtained an order that they were furnished with a copy of the First Information Report (FIR).

Also Read: CBI files fresh FIR against NewsClick on allegations of FCRA violations

The petitioners relied on a recent Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, which annulled arrests made by the Enforcement Directorate for failure to provide the grounds of arrest in writing.

In its judgement, the High Court concluded that the Pankaj Bansal case, which was specific to the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, was not applicable to cases under the UAPA.