Supreme Court Directs NewsClick Founder Prabir Purkayastha To Be Examined By AIIMS; Asks State To Bear Expenses Despite Its Protests
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 27), while hearing an application for NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha's release on medical grounds, directed a board to be constituted by All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) to conduct an independent medical evaluation. The court also categorically stated that the State would have to bear the expenses for such evaluation.A bench of...
The Supreme Court on Tuesday (February 27), while hearing an application for NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha's release on medical grounds, directed a board to be constituted by All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) to conduct an independent medical evaluation. The court also categorically stated that the State would have to bear the expenses for such evaluation.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was hearing Purkayastha's special leave petition assailing a decision of the Delhi High Court upholding his arrest by the Delhi Police in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged Chinese funding to promote anti-national propaganda. Co-accused and NewsClick human resources head Amit Chakraborty had also approached the top court challenging his arrest, but he was allowed to withdraw his plea after he turned approver for the Enforcement Directorate and was granted a pardon.
Questioning the legality of their arrest, the petitioner contended that the host of criminal charges he has been slapped with, including of allegedly committing offences under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, and 22 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, as well as Sections 153A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, are not tenable. The main thrust of Purkayastha's argument, however, is the non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the time of his arrest. In aid of this contention, he have pointed to the Pankaj Bansal ruling in which the top court quashed arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for not furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the detenus.
The Delhi police, however, has insisted that the requirement under Article 22 of the Constitution was met inasmuch as Purkayastha was informed of the reasons for his arrest. It has been maintained that the Pankaj Bansal ruling would not apply to offences under the UAPA, since it was handed out in PMLA's specific context.
Today, when the matter was initially taken up, a request for a pass-over was made on behalf of ASG Raju. In response to this, Purkayastha's lawyer, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal - who on many occasions has expressed concerns about the septuagenarian's deteriorating health, sarcastically remarked, "He should not pass away while you ask for a pass-over."
During the hearing, the senior counsel told the court that the current medical report did not include the situation he is confronted with in jail, despite the central jail hospital's record containing the detailed history. Accordingly, he urged the court to direct an independent medical evaluation by AIIMS as well as to summon the jail records.
"He must bear the cost. Why should we bear his cost?" Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said, in response to the suggestion of an evaluation by a team from AIIMS.
"Because he is your guest," Justice Mehta countered, citing another case where the costs for such evaluation were borne by the State.
Sibal also chimed in, "If the State has some problem with finances, we'll take care of it. I can personally contribute to the State, no problem."
"You or your client?" Justice Gavai asked.
"I will personally contribute," came the senior counsel's response.
The law officer, however, argued that it was a matter of principle to not allow requests for such evaluation, alleging a diversion of resources to 'moneybanks' when hospitals like AIIMS have been established to service everyone, particularly the poor.
Again, Justice Mehta stopped the additional solicitor general, saying, "Since he is in custody, this argument cannot be raised. Release him and he will get himself treated at his own expense in the best hospital..."
Ultimately, while adjourning the hearing for two weeks, the court directed the petitioner's medical condition to be examined by a board appointed by the Director of AIIMS. "This board shall also consider the complete medical history of the petitioner as falls from the records of the central jail hospital," the bench clarified in its order.
Background
On October 3, Delhi police conducted raids on the residences of prominent journalists associated with NewsClick, a news organization known for its critical coverage of the Indian government. According to police officials, a total of 46 suspects – 37 men, and 9 women – were questioned and their electronic devices seized under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act following allegations that the portal received funds for pro-China propaganda. The organisation came under the investigating agency's scanner after a report by The New York Times said the firm allegedly received money from US billionaire Neville Roy Singham, who is accused of pushing campaigns in support of China and its propaganda. After the day-long search, seizures and detentions, the Delhi Police arrested NewsClick founder and its editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha, and Amit Chakravarty, the organisation's human resources head, under the UAPA. The duo is currently in judicial custody.
On October 13, the Delhi High Court dismissed Purkayastha's and Chakraborty's pleas challenging a trial court order remanding them to seven days of police custody in the UAPA case. They had argued that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to them in writing, with a copy of the first information report (FIR) being provided only after they approached the court. The duo placed reliance on Supreme Court's recent judgment in Pankaj Bansal quashing arrests by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for not furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the detenus. On the other hand, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta contended before the high court that while the grounds of arrest had not been supplied, the duo had been informed of them.
Ultimately, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the police remand order, holding that the grounds of arrest had been conveyed to them and as such, there was no procedural infirmity or violation of any provisions under UAPA or the Constitution. The single judge also observed that the Supreme Court's judgment in Pankaj Bansal, directing the ED to inform the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under the UAPA.