The Delhi high court on Friday refused to interfere with the arrest and subsequent police remand of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and the news portal's human resources department head Amit Chakravarty in a case lodged against them under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The high court rejected their contention that they ought to have been supplied with the grounds of arrest when they were apprehended by police and said the UAPA does not mandate furnishing the written grounds and only speaks of the accused being 'informed' about the reasons for arrest.
The court said it would be advisable that the police henceforth provide the grounds of arrest in writing to an accused after redacting sensitive material .
Dismissing the petitions, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said there was no procedural infirmity or violation of legal or constitutional provisions in relation to the arrest and the remand order is sustainable in law.
The petition, being devoid of any merit, along with pending applications, is dismissed, said the court in its order passed on the petition by the portal's founder.
After examining the entire issue in the right perspective, it appears as of now that the grounds of arrest were indeed conveyed to the petitioner, as soon as may be, after the arrest and as such, there does not appear to be any procedural infirmity or violation of the provisions of the Section 43B of the UAPA or the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and as such, the arrest are in accordance with law, the court stated.
The court noted that offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) directly impact the stability, integrity and sovereignty of the country and are of utmost importance since they affect national security.
It said the arrestee only needed to be informed about the grounds of arrest within 24 hours of being apprehended.
Keeping in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (the case of) Pankaj Bansal (supra), and also considering the stringent provisions of UAPA, it would be advisable that the respondent, henceforth, provide grounds of arrest in writing, though after redacting what in the opinion of the respondent would constitute 'sensitive material'.
This too would obviate, as held by the Supreme Court, any such challenge to the arrest as made in the present case, the court added.
The petitioners, besides assailing their arrest over non-supply of the reasons for it, had also contended that the subsequent remand order sending them to 7-day police custody was passed in the absence of their lawyers.
It was also alleged that there was an 'obvious discrepancy' in the trial court's remand order because while the order recorded 6 am as the time of pronouncement, in terms of the high court rules, Purkayastha's lawyer was sent the remand application through WhatsApp only at 7 am.
Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Dayan Krishnan appeared for Purkayastha.
While dealing with Purkayastha's petition, Justice Gedela observed in the order that the entire arguments on facts in respect of the arrest and the subsequent remand proceedings appear to be clearly at variance. So much so, they are, at times, contradictory.
His counsel was provided with the remand application as also was heard by the trial court, though telephonically, before passing the remand order, the court said and questioned why the present petition was filed almost 3 days after arrest and 2 days after the remand proceedings.
In case the argument of the petitioner about non-furnishing of grounds of arrest is taken to be true, then it is inexplicable as to how the petitioner had, on 04.10.2023, even before receiving the copy of the present FIR, gained the knowledge that the present FIR was in the nature of a second FIR registered on the basis of the same allegations and transactions which were levelled against him by the EOW/ECIR in the previous FIR regarding offences under PMLA, the court remarked.
There is nothing placed on record to demonstrate that the timelines as averred in the petition are factually correct in nature or even to suggest otherwise, asserted the court.
In the order passed on Chakravarty's petition, the court added Had there been any truthfulness in the version of the petitioner , grievance would have been raised against the allegedly illegal remand when an application was made before the trial court for supply of copy of FIR on the same day.
The court said that since serious offences affecting the stability, integrity, sovereignty and national security are alleged against the HR head, it was not inclined to pass any favorable orders only because he was a differently-abled person suffering from 59 per cent physical disability
Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3.
They subsequently moved the high court challenging the arrest as well as the seven-day police custody and sought immediate release as an interim relief.
Delhi police, represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, had opposed the petitions saying Rs 75 crore came to the news portal from a person in China to ensure that the country's stability and integrity is compromised, and that due legal process, as prescribed under UAPA, was followed.
He said the case involves serious offences and the probe was still going on.
On October 10, the trial court sent them to judicial custody for 10 days.
A case has been lodged against the two under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.
According to the FIR, a large amount of funds to the news portal allegedly came from China to "disrupt the sovereignty of India" and cause disaffection against the country.
It also alleged that Purkayastha conspired with a group -- People's Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) -- to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
