The Supreme Court on January 5 issued notice to investigative agencies and the Delhi Police on a petition filed by online portal NewsClick highlighting the lack of transparency and formal procedure when personal digital devices of journalists are seized during raids.
Appearing before a Bench headed by Justice B.R. Gavai, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for NewsClick, said “no procedure of law was followed, no documents were given. Nothing was done” during the Delhi police raids at NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha’s premises leading to his arrest in October 2023 in a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case.
Explained | Can journalists be compelled to share passwords and hand over electronic devices?
When Justice Gavai questioned why the petitioner had approached the apex court directly, Mr. Sibal said similar petitions by the Foundation of Media Professionals and five academicians seeking guidelines on seizure of personal digital and electronic devices were already pending in the top court. The court tagged the NewsClick case with these petitions.
Editorial | Limiting search and seizure: On digital devices and media professionals
On December 14, another Bench of the Supreme Court, hearing the pending petitions, had ordered the Centre to adhere to directives in the CBI Manual to protect the integrity of personal data stored in electronic devices seized during raids conducted, especially, on members of the academia and media. The Centre had at the time said work to bring out new guidelines were under way and would take a maximum of three months. The court had listed those petitions for February 6.
‘Inherent malice’
Recently, multiple journalists’ collectives from across the country had written to the Chief Justice of India 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 seizure of their electronic devices.
The collectives had said “journalism cannot be prosecuted as terrorism”. The letter had said the invocation of the UAPA was “especially chilling”.
The letter had said the police had only so far 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.
It had said journalists arrested under the UAPA end up spending months, if not years, in jail.
