The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to interfere with the arrest and subsequent police remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and its human resources department head Amit Chakraborty in a case lodged under the anti-terror law, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
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 also challenged the order of remand given by a Special Judge on October 4, saying it was passed in the absence of their lawyers.
Also read: Editorial Undeclared Emergency: On the arrests and actions in Newsclick case
The High Court, however, 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 remarked.
Grounds of arrest
The High Court further said that the recent Supreme Court’s landmark verdict directing investigating agencies to provide the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused in Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) cases will not apply to UAPA cases. The grounds of arrest need to be informed to the arrestee within 24 hours, but the furnishing of such grounds, in writing, is not mandated under the UAPA, the High Court clarified.
The High Court, however, added that considering the stringent provisions of the UAPA, it would be advisable that the investigating agencies, henceforth, provide grounds of arrest in writing, though after redacting what in their opinion would constitute “sensitive material”.
Previously, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta had told the court that a “huge” sum of money, about ₹75 crore, was sent by a person who is staying in China [to NewsClick] and “the purpose is to ensure that the integrity and stability of the country is compromised”.
The Solicitor-General had said that the email exchanges between Mr. Purkayastha and “other entities” that have been analysed till now “indicate a deliberate attempt to show Jammu & Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as ‘disputed territories’”. “So much so that the words used for Arunachal Pradesh in particular are “Northern Border of India”, which is generally used as Chinese propaganda,” the Solicitor-General had said.
