Breaking | Delhi High Court Upholds Trial Court Order Which Remanded NewsClick Founder Prabir Puryakastha, HR Head To 7 Days' Police Custody

The Delhi High Court today dismissed the pleas filed 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 registered following allegations of the portal receiving money for pro-China propaganda.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld their 7 days of police remand. The duo is presently under judicial custody, since October 10 which is expiring on October 20.

“This court does not find any merit in the petitions. The same are accordingly dismissed,” the court said while pronouncing the order. 

While dismissing Purkayastha’s petition, Justice Gedela said that the grounds of arrest were indeed conveyed the portal’s founder, as soon as may be, after the arrest. 

The court said that there was no procedural infirmity or violation of the provisions of the Section 43B of the UAPA or the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India in the matter.

“In the present case too, the offences which are alleged, fall within the ambit of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they would affect the national security,” the court said.

Justice Gedela also observed that nothing was placed on record to demonstrate that the timelines as averred in the petition were factually correct in nature or even to suggest otherwise.

“In case the argument of the petitioner about non-furnishing of grounds of arrest is taken to be true, then it is inexplicable as to how the petitioner had, on 04.10.2023, even before receiving the copy of the present FIR, gained the knowledge that the present FIR was in the nature of a second FIR registered on the basis of the same allegations and transactions which were leveled against him by the EOW/ECIR in the previous FIR regarding offences under PMLA,” the court said.

The court observed that Purkayastha’s counsel was provided with the remand application as also was heard, though telephonically by the Special Judge, before passing the remand order.

“It is intriguing that the petitioner admits to have met his counsel in the evening hours of 04.10.2023 also, albeit, after seeking permission from the learned Special Judge for such meeting, yet, there is no averment on record to demonstrate as to what effective steps were taken by the counsel for the petitioner even after that. This petition was filed on 06.10.2023, almost 3 days after the date of arrest and 2 days after the remand proceedings and there is no explanation forthcoming on that count,” the court said.

Arguments before Court

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appearing for Purkayastha had submitted that the NewsClick founder was not supplied with the grounds of arrest. 

Taking the court through the allegations against Purkayastha and others in the UAPA case, Sibal also claimed that 'not a penny' was received by them from China. 

On the other hand, appearing for the Delhi Police, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted that the arrested persons were in fact “informed” about the grounds of arrest. However, he said that it is an admitted fact that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to the duo.

Mehta also said that allegations involved in the matter are that about Rs. 75 crores were received from China and that the accused persons allegedly ensured that the stability and integrity of the country is compromised. He said that the offences alleged are very serious.

Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, also appearing for Purkayastha, had submitted that his client’s right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated as his client was neither provided with the grounds of his arrest nor was he allowed to have his lawyer at the time of passing of remand order.

What is the case about?

The allegations against the NewsClick founder came to light after a New York Times report published on August 5th alleged that online media outlet NewsClick had received funds from China to create an “anti-India” atmosphere.

This was followed by a series of raids by the Delhi police into the residences of journalists and writers, both past and present, associated with Newsclick.

A statement was issued by the news portal yesterday claiming that it was not provided with a copy of the FIR, or informed about the exact particulars of the offences with which it was charged.

“Electronic devices were seized from the Newsclick premises and homes of employees, without any adherence to due process such as the provision of seizure memos, hash values of the seized data, or even copies of the data. Newsclick’s office has also been sealed in a blatant attempt at preventing us from continuing our reporting,” the statement said.

It added that Newsclick strongly condemns the actions of a Government that “refuses to respect journalistic independence, and treats criticism as sedition or anti-national propaganda.”

“Newsclick has been targeted by a series of actions by various agencies of the Government of India since 2021. Its offices and residences of officials have been raided by the Enforcement Directorate, the Economic Offences Wing of Delhi Police and the Income Tax Department. All devices, laptops, gadgets, phones, etc. have been seized in the past. All emails and communications have been analysed under the microscope. All bank statements, invoices, expenses incurred and sources of funds received by Newsclick in the last several years have been scrutinised by different agencies of the Government from time to time,” it added.

Prior to the NYT report, NewsClick was facing another investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) based on allegations of money laundering. This had initiated multiple raids by ED into the premises of the editors and the case is still pending.

NewsClick and Purkayastha had earlier approached the Delhi High Court seeking a copy of the ECIR registered by ED in September 2020 in the money laundering case, which had passed interim orders on June 21, 2021 and July 20 directing the ED not to take any coercive action against the website and its editor in chief.

Subsequently, ED had sought vacation of two orders passed by a co-ordinate bench on June 21, 2021 and July 20, 2021.

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

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 960

Click Here To Read Order