A Supreme Court Bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and P.K. Mishra on October 19 issued notice to the Delhi Police on petitions challenging the arrest and remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and employee Amir Chakraborty under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
The case would come up for hearing on October 30.
Editorial | NewsClick non-case: On the strange case of a terrorism FIR without a terrorist act
Initially, the court gave a date after three weeks, but senior advocate Kapil Sibal urged the court to list the case immediately after the Dasara vacation, drawing attention to the fact that his client, Mr. Purkayastha, was over 70 years old and already in remand for several days now. Senior advocate Devaduut Kamat appeared for Mr. Chakraborty.
The case had initially come up on October 18, but the Bench adjourned it by a day while indicating that it would issue notice to the police.
The case had reached the Supreme 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.
Also read: Statement by Neville Roy Singham on Newsclick funding row
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. The Delhi Police, in the FIR, have named Mr. Purkayastha, activist Gautam Navlakha, who is under house arrest in another terror case, and U.S.-based businessman Neville Roy Singham.
The 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.
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.
Multiple journalists’ collectives from across the country had a few days ago written to Chief Justice Chandrachud to take cognisance and check the “inherent malice” behind the raids at the homes of 46 journalists, editors, writers and professionals connected to online portal NewsClick and seizure of their electronic devices.
The collectives said that “journalism cannot be prosecuted as terrorism”. The letter said the invocation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was “especially chilling”.
The letter said the police have 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 that journalists arrested under the UAPA end up spending months, if not years, in jail.
