NewsClick Case | SC Judgment In 'Pankaj Bansal' On Informing Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Not Applicable To UAPA: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing ED to inform grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under UAPA.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that under UAPA, the grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours of such arrest, however furnishing of such grounds in written are not mandated under the enactment.

“Thus, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) while relying upon V. Senthil Balaji (supra) which was purely in relation to the provisions of PMLA cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be made applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the cases arising under UAPA,” the court said.

It added: “So far as the UAPA is concerned, no such similar statutory obligation is cast upon the authorities under the provisions of section 43A & 43B and thus, the ratio of the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal (supra) cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under the provisions of UAPA.”

Furthermore, the court said that keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal case as well as the stringent provisions of UAPA, “it would be advisable” that the Delhi Police, henceforth, provides 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 said.

Justice Gedela also observed that the sensitivity of the information or intelligence being gathered by the investigating authorities under UAPA is of a greater significance having direct impact on the issues relating to national security.

The court made the observations while dismissing the petitions moved by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources head Amit Chakraborty challenging the trial court order remanding them to seven days of police custody in the UAPA case.

The case was registered following allegations of the portal receiving money for pro-China propaganda. The duo challenged the police remand by submitting that the grounds of arrest were not provided to them.

Justice Gedela observed that the similarity in the language of Section 19(1) of PMLA in comparison to section 43B of UAPA “appears to be pari materia” but for the words “material in his possession” and “recorded in writing”.

“When compared to the language employed in section 43A of UAPA, except for the words reason to believe, the words “material in his possession” and “recorded in writing” appear to be deliberately omitted or not inserted by the legislature. It is trite that Courts cannot read into the statute, words which are deliberately or purposefully omitted or not inserted. Therefore, it does not appear to be correct that there is any mandate upon such officer in section 43A of UAPA to record in writing the reason for such belief on the basis of material in his possession,” the court said.

It added: “It is pertinent to observe that no such provision is present in section 43B of UAPA, where “reasons to believe”, for the purposes of arrest, need not be recorded in writing. This is the distinction drawn between provisions of section 19(1) & (2) of PMLA on the one hand and section 43A & 43B of UAPA on the other. Thus, though there may be similarity in certain portions of the language, however, the aforesaid provisions of both the statutes cannot be said to be pari materia.”

Case Title: PRABIR PURKAYASTHA v. STATE NCT OF DELHI & ANR. and other connected matter

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 960

Click Here To Read Order