A Supreme Court Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and P.K. Mishra on October 18 adjourned petitions challenging the arrest and remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources head Amit Chakraborty to October 19. The pair were arrested by the Delhi Police under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) on October 3.
Justice Gavai, while posting the case for Thursday, orally indicated that notice would anyway have to be issued to the police in the case.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadutt Kamat appeared for the petitioners. In an oral mentioning on Monday for an early listing of the case, Mr. SIbal had said that Mr. Purkayastha was over 70-years-old and was under remand for the past few days.
The case had reached the top court after the Delhi High Court refused to interfere with the arrest and subsequent police remand of Mr. Purkayastha and Mr. Chakraborty under the anti-terror law.
‘Grounds of arrest unknown’
Mr. Purkayastha and Mr. Chakraborty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 pursuant to an FIR registered on August 17, which named three accused: Mr. Purkayastha, activist Gautam Navlakha, who is under house arrest in another terror case, and U.S.-based businessman Neville Roy Singham.
The Newsclick duo had challenged their arrest in the High Court, saying that the grounds of arrest were not conveyed to them in writing either at the time of arrest or even till date. They had challenged the order of remand given by a Special Judge on October 4, saying it was passed in the absence of their lawyers.
Editorial |Undeclared Emergency: On the arrests and actions in Newsclick case
National security impact
The High Court had rejected their contention, saying there was no “procedural infirmity” or violation of constitutional provisions in relation to the arrest and the remand order. “In the present case... 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 High Court had remarked.
The High Court had further said the recent Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal case, directing investigating agencies to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases, would not apply to UAPA cases.
‘Use of UAPA is chilling’
Multiple journalists’ collectives from across the country had written to Chief Justice Chandrachud a few days ago, asking him to take cognisance and check the “inherent malice” behind the raids at the homes of 46 journalists, editors, writers and professionals connected to NewsClick, and the seizure of their electronic devices.
The collectives said that “journalism cannot be prosecuted as terrorism”, adding that the invocation of UAPA was “especially chilling”.
The letter said that, so far, the police have only provided “vague assertions of some unspecified offence” as a pretext to question journalists about their coverage of the farmers’ movement, the government’s handling of the pandemic, and the protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act.
“Intimidation of the media affects the democratic fabric of society. Subjecting journalists to a concentrated criminal process because the government disapproves of their coverage of national and international affairs is an attempt to chill the press by threat of reprisal,” the letter had noted, adding that journalists arrested under the UAPA end up spending months, if not years, in jail.
Published - October 18, 2023 05:17 pm IST
