Prabir Purkayastha's Arrest By Delhi Police & Remand Illegal : Supreme Court Orders NewsClick Editor's Release In UAPA Case

In a major development, the Supreme Court on Wednesday (May 15) declared as illegal NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha's arrest by the Delhi police and his remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967.

The Court noted that a copy of the remand application was not provided to Purkayastha or his counsel before passing the remand order on October 4, 2023.  This meant that the grounds of the arrest were not supplied to him in writing. It was the case of the Delhi police that requirement to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing was fulfilled by the serving of the remand application, but the Court was not convinced.

"There is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that a copy of the remand application, in the purported exercise of the communication of the grounds of arrest in writing, was not provided to the accused-appellant or his counsel before the passing of the remand order dated 4th October, 2023, which vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand of the appellant. As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody by applying the ration of the judgment rendered by this court in Pankaj Bansal," the Court pronounced.

The arrest, remand having been declared invalid in the eyes of law and set aside, the Court ordered the release of Purkayasatha. However, it said that the release will be subject to his furnishing the bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court, since chargesheet has been filed.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta delivered the verdict, after having concluded arguments on April 30. It may be recalled that Purkayastha is in custody since October 3 last year under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in a case over receiving Chinese funds to propagate anti-national propaganda. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for Purkayastha and Additional Solicitor General SV Raju appeared for the Delhi Police.

Purkayastha challenged the legality of his arrest by contending that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him in writing as mandated by the Supreme Court's judgment in Pankaj Bansal. The Delhi police, on the other hand, contended that the grounds of arrest were contained in the remand application.

During the hearing, the Court had noted that the remand order was recorded to have been passed at 6 AM on October 4, 2023. However, copy of the remand application was served on Purkayastha's lawyer much later.

The day verdict was reserved (April 30), the Court questioned Delhi Police's "hot haste" in producing Purkayastha before the Magistrate at 6 AM even without informing his lawyer. It also expressed surprise at the fact that the remand order was passed before the remand application was served on Purkayastha's lawyer.

The Delhi police's response to the same was that the time recorded in the remand order (6 AM) was wrong and that the remand order was passed after serving the counsel of the accused. However, this argument did not impress the Court which asserted that it would go only by the time recorded in the judicial order.

Purkayastha had filed the petition assailing a decision of the Delhi High Court upholding his arrest by the Delhi Police. In today's verdict, the Supreme Court set aside the Delhi High Court's judgment as well.

Notably, 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.

It may also be mentioned that while Purkayastha's case was pending, the court had directed the constitution of a board by the All India Institute of Medical Science (AIIMS) for Purkayastha's independent medical evaluation. This report was received by March 20.

For a detailed background and previous reports, click here.

Other reports about the judgment can be read here

Case Details: Prabir Purkayastha v. State, Diary No, 42896 of 2023

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 376

Click here to read the judgment