The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to list early a special leave petition challenging the Delhi High Court order dismissing petitions filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and its human resources head Amir Chakraborty against their arrest by the Delhi Police under the draconian Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
In an oral mentioning before a Bench headed by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, for the petitioners, said Mr. Purkayastha was over 70 years old and had been in remand for several days.
Chief Justice Chandrachud said he would look at the case papers later in the day and fix a date for hearing.
Earlier in October, the High Court had refused to interfere with the arrest and subsequent police remand of Mr. Purkayastha and Mr. Chakraborty under the anti-terror law.
Mr. Purkayastha and Mr. Chakraborty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 pursuant to a First Information Report (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.
‘Inherent malice’ alleged
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 UAPA was “especially chilling”.
The letter 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 COVID-19 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.
