Supreme Court Requests Delhi Police’s Response to NewsClick Chief Editor and HR Head’s Arrests
Image source: The New Indian Express
In a significant development, the Supreme Court of India has taken notice of the recent arrests of NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha, and the head of human resources, Amit Chakraborty. The apex court issued a notice to the Delhi Police in response to pleas made by the two individuals, who are challenging their detention.
The bench of Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra heard the special leave petitions made by the duo, which challenged a decision made by the Delhi High Court that upheld their arrest by the Delhi Police in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The case pertains to alleged Chinese funding to promote anti-national propaganda. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned this case before Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for an urgent hearing earlier this week.
Today, the court issued notices in both special leave petitions. Although the court initially planned on directing the matter to be heard after three weeks, at the request of Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, the court ultimately agreed to schedule the hearing on October 30.
The Delhi High Court, on October 13, dismissed the pleas of Purkayastha and Chakraborty, who had challenged a trial court order that remanded them to seven days of police custody in the UAPA case. The defendants argued that they were not provided with the grounds of arrest in writing, and they only received a copy of the first information report (FIR) after approaching the court.
They relied on a recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the Pankaj Bansal case, where arrests made by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) were deemed invalid due to the failure to furnish the grounds of arrest in writing to the detainees. However, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta argued before the high court that although the grounds of arrest were not formally supplied, the defendants were indeed informed of them.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the police remand order, ultimately holding that the grounds of arrest had been conveyed to the accused, and as such, there was no procedural infirmity or violation of any provisions under UAPA or the Constitution. The single judge also observed that the Supreme Court’s judgment in Pankaj Bansal, directing the ED to inform the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under the UAPA.
Team Profile
- News Writer
- Isha Tripathi is a 5th-year law student. Being a law student, her primary writing focus has always been on society, mental health, and various legal aspects, but she is always open to other areas of writing. She has also completed two internships as a content writer. In addition to this, she has written various blogs, articles, etc.
Latest entries
News31 October 2023Remembering the Tragic Day: Reflecting on the Assassination of Indira Gandhi, October 31, 1984
News30 October 2023Kerala Man Involved in Triple Blasts Apprehended Under Anti-Terror Legislation
News29 October 2023Giant Lizard Takes Over Karnataka Village, Leaving Locals in Shock!
News26 October 2023Opposition Leaders Express Concern Over PM Modi’s Presence at the Ram Temple Inauguration
