NewsClick case: Delhi HC reserves order on plea by portal founder against arrest in UAPA case

Counsel appearing for NewsClick founder Purkayastha and Chakravarty contended that their arrest and remand under UAPA cannot be sustained on several legal counts, including that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to them at the time of arrest and the remand order was passed by the trial court in a mechanical manner, in the absence of their lawyers.

New Delhi : The Delhi High Court has reserved its orders in a significant case involving Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, and Amit Chakravarty, the head of the human resources department. They have challenged their arrest and subsequent police custody under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The case revolves around allegations that NewsClick was involved in spreading pro-China propaganda, a matter of grave concern for national security.

During the court proceedings, legal counsel representing Purkayastha and Chakravarty argued vehemently that their arrest and subsequent remand were legally questionable. They highlighted multiple legal discrepancies, including the fact that the grounds for their arrest were not provided at the time of apprehension, and the remand order was issued by the trial court without their legal representatives present. These arguments formed the crux of their plea for immediate release.

However, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the police, vehemently opposed these pleas. He contended that the case involved serious offenses, which justified their arrest under the provisions of the UAPA. Mehta argued that the arrest was fully compliant with the legal requirements of the UAPA, and the police had acted within their jurisdiction and authority. The court carefully considered these arguments before reserving its order.

The sequence of events leading to this legal battle began when Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3. Subsequently, they approached the Delhi High Court, seeking to challenge their arrest and requesting immediate release as interim relief. The trial court had ordered their police custody until October 11, effectively extending their detention.

In connection with these allegations, the police have taken additional actions, including the sealing of NewsClick's office in Delhi. The crux of the accusations revolves around the news portal's alleged involvement in spreading pro-China propaganda. The FIR against NewsClick suggests that a substantial amount of funds had been funnelled from China to the portal with the intent to disrupt India's sovereignty and incite disaffection against the country. Furthermore, the FIR alleges that Purkayastha conspired with a group known as the People's Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.

In a recent development, the Special Cell of the Delhi Police shared information regarding the action taken against the accused and provided a copy of the FIR. The FIR reveals that the police received confidential information regarding the illegal transfer of substantial funds into India from abroad. It also implicates Gautam Navlakha, a shareholder in PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited, in anti-India and illegal activities, along with his alleged connections to Pakistan's ISI agent Ghulam Nabi Fai. Email exchanges between Prabir Purkayastha, Neville Roy Singham, and some of their company's employees are cited as evidence, where they discussed the exclusion of Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir from India's map.

In addition to these allegations, the police have accused NewsClick editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha and his associates, including Joseph Raj, Anup Chakraborty, and Bappaditya Sinha, of embezzling money illegally. These accusations collectively form the backdrop against which the Delhi High Court is currently deliberating its decision regarding the pleas of Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty. The court's verdict is eagerly awaited as it will have far-reaching implications for the case and its impact on the broader discourse surrounding freedom of the press and national security.