Achi news desk-
GUWAHATI: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 30, reserved its verdict on the plea of ​​Prabir Purkayastha, editor-in-chief of online news portal NewsClick. He challenged his arrest and detention by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta ruled for the Delhi Police counsel regarding the conduct of the arrest proceedings. The bench asked why Purkayastha’s lawyer was not informed about the arrest in advance, given that the arrest warrant was obtained at around 6:00 am before Purkayastha or his lawyer was informed of the grounds for the arrest.
Click here to join our WhatsApp channel
"Why didn’t you notify his lawyer in advance? Please tell us. You had 24 hours. What was the rush? You could produce it at 10 in the morning! Who is the counsel for the arrest and why was his lawyer not informed? Is it possible to order an arrest without informing the accused about the grounds for the arrest?" Justice Mehta asked.
Purkayastha was arrested on October 3, 2023, following a series of raids over allegations made in a New York Times story that NewsClick was being funded to promote Chinese propaganda. The Delhi Police subsequently charged him under the UAPA, alleging that he received significant foreign funds on purpose "disrupt the sovereignty, unity and security of India."
Senior attorney Kapil Sibal, who represents Purkayastha, questioned the legality of his arrest, claiming that the grounds for the arrest were not given to him properly, contrary to the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Pankaj Bansal case. Sibal pointed out that the arrest request does not contain the grounds for the arrest, and the FIR not filed.
He also claimed that preventing written grounds for arrest violates the principle of natural justice. "How will I understand the information if it is transmitted only orally? What is the constitutional basis for hiding it? It is not possible to prevent information by itself," Sible stated.
Also Read: LS Elections 2024: Phase 1 & 2 Voter turnout exceeds 66%
Additional advocate SV Raju and Advocate Zohab Hussain, representing the Delhi Police, argued that detailed grounds for arrest were finally given to Purkayastha. However, Justice Gabbai noted that this information was only given after the arrest warrant was issued, questioning the timing and fairness of the process.
The court reserved its verdict in the case after hearing arguments from both sides. Purkayastha’s arrest and detention was previously challenged in the Delhi High Court, which upheld the lower court’s decision. The appeal then reached the Supreme Court.
