The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its verdict on a petition filed by editor-in-chief of online news portal NewsClick, Prabir Purkayastha, challenging his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, while reserving the judgement, asked questions as to how the remand proceedings were conducted.
The Bench orally observed that the remand order was clearly passed (at around 6 am) before Purkayastha or his counsel were informed as to why he was arrested.
It asked the counsel appearing for the Delhi police as to why no advance notice was given to Purkayastha’s lawyer about his remand, when it had 24 hours.
It said there was no reason for haste as the accused could have been produced before a court at 10 am.
The Bench further inquired about the remand counsel and asked whether the remand could be granted without informing the accused of grounds of arrest.
The Apex Court orally observed that the principles of natural justice required that remand hearing should have been kept at 11 am. Justice has to be seen to be done also.
It further asked the need for the police to keep a legal aid counsel instead of informing the accused’s regular counsel.
Recently, the Delhi Police filed its charge sheet against Purkayastha and NewsClick in the case before a Delhi court, which took cognisance of the same on Tuesday. The matter will be heard by the trial court on May 31 for framing of charges.
Purkayastha was booked under the UAPA and arrested on October 3, 2023, following a series of raids conducted in the wake of allegations made in a New York Times article that NewsClick was being paid to boost Chinese propaganda.
NewsClick HR head Amit Chakraborty was also arrested by the police in the same case.
Representing Purkayastha, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal on Tuesday questioned how a digital portal could be a threat to sovereignty.
He argued that the Delhi High Court was wrong in holding that it was sufficient compliance of UAPA to orally communicate the grounds of arrest to Purkayastha (instead of conveying them in written form).
He added that this was contrary to the reasoning in the top court’s Pankaj Bansal judgment.
Appearing for the Delhi Police, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hossain replied that detailed grounds of arrest were eventually forwarded to the accused.
“But after the remand order. Like giving an opportunity to hear after judgment,” Justice Gavai pointed out.
The concern was echoed by Justice Mehta, who said:
“It is about sanctity of proceedings. When it was passed at 6 AM, there were no grounds of arrest shared. If WhatsApp message (to counsel) was at 7, then order could not have been before 8, 8.30. Entire proceedings was without audience.”
Hossain added that not furnishing written grounds of arrest in UAPA cases did not violate the Constitution. He asserted that the Pankaj Bansal judgment cannot be applied in such matters. He also stressed that custody (after remand) and arrest were not synonymous.
Sibal, however, maintained that the grounds of arrest cannot be withheld from the accused in any case.
The Court proceeded to reserve its verdict in the matter.
They argued that their arrest and remand were illegal since they were not supplied with the grounds of arrest, in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors (M3M case).
However, the High Court rejected the said argument, holding that the Pankal Bansal judgment is not squarely applicable to arrests made under the UAPA. This led to the appeal before the apex court.
Pertinently, Chakraborty has since turned an approver for the prosecution. Thus, he withdrew his plea against the arrest.