NewsClick founder’s arrest invalid, Supreme Court orders immediate release
New Delhi:- The Supreme Court has just ruled that Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, should be released. They found that his arrest by the Delhi Police under the anti-terror law UAPA was illegal. The Justices pointed out that the remand copy wasn’t provided in the case, making his arrest null and void.
The court made it crystal clear that since the grounds of arrest weren’t provided, it completely undermines the legality of the arrest. Following the precedent set by the Pankaj Bansal case, the appellant has every right to be released from custody. Justice Mehta emphasized that the remand order is essentially worthless. It’s a strong statement affirming the importance of procedural fairness and individual rights.
In a previous ruling in the Pankaj Bansal case back in March, the Supreme court emphasized that it’s essential to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused. This sets a crucial standard for transparency and fairness in the legal process.
The trial court will be responsible for setting the conditions for bail for Mr. Purkayastha.
ASG SV Raju, who was arguing for the police, mentioned that even though Mr. Purkayastha’s arrest has been deemed invalid, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the police won’t be able to exercise their proper authority to make arrests in the future.
Justice Gavai simply responded, “You’re allowed to do whatever the law permits.”
Back on April 30th, the Supreme Court had some tough questions for the Delhi Police. They wondered why Mr. Purkayastha was rushed before the magistrate without his lawyer being informed after his arrest. The court also found it quite puzzling that the remand order was issued even before his lawyer got hold of his remand application.
Senior lawyer Kapil Sibal, who was representing Mr. Purkayastha, explained that his client was arrested on October 3 and brought before the magistrate early in the morning at 6 am the following day. However, only legal aid lawyers and the additional public prosecutor were present; Mr. Purkayastha’s own lawyer wasn’t informed. When Mr. Purkayastha raised concerns about this, the investigating officer then informed his lawyer via phone and sent the remand application to him through WhatsApp, according to Mr. Sibal.
The bench emphasized that the principles of natural justice dictate that Mr. Purkayastha’s lawyer should be present when the remand order is passed. It’s a basic right ensuring fairness in the legal process.
Mr Purkayastha was arrested on October 3 last under the anti-terror law, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, days after a New York Times investigation alleged that NewsClick had received funding from a network pushing Chinese propaganda.
In a chargesheet filed back in March, spanning a whopping 8,000 pages along with annexures, the Delhi Police leveled accusations against NewsClick and Mr. Purkayastha, alleging involvement in terror funding and the promotion of Chinese propaganda.
