Supreme Court seeks Delhi police response in NewsClick founders' arrest case

In two special leave petitions (SLPs) challenging their arrests and police remand for alleged offenses under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and the organization's HR head Amit Chakraborty filed, the Supreme Court requested the Delhi police's response on Thursday.

The matter was postponed until October 30 by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra, who also sent notifications to the Delhi police.

Judge Gavai initially stated that the respondent will have three weeks to submit their response. On behalf of Purkayastha, senior counsel Kapil Sibal objected, saying: "That will be too long." We will serve dasti, or notice from the petitioners' side, to the 72-year-old guy who has been inside, Sibal declared.

The Delhi police is anticipated to file a response by October 30, which is when the bench decided to list the matter after a brief interval.

Senior advocate Devadatt Kamat represented Chakraborty.

The two have filed the SLPs in opposition to the concurrent decisions made on October 13 by a single judge of the Delhi High Court as well as an earlier decision made by a trial court that denied to overturn their arrests and remand.

Reasoning that "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," Delhi High Court single judge Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had earlier on October 13 refused to interfere with Purkayastha and Chakraborty's arrest.

NewsClick and Purkayastha have categorically refuted the accusations and charged that the government is targeting the media outlet with malice.

On October 3, Purkayastha and Chakraborty were taken into custody following extensive searches by the Delhi police special cell on the news portal's headquarters and the homes of its upper management, on suspicion of engaging in anti-national activities. The group was charged by the Delhi police of obtaining finances illegally from groups such as the People's Alliance for Democracy and Secularism in order to disrupt the 2019 elections and to portray Arunachal Pradesh and Kashmir as non-Indian territories.

The argument that the arrests and ensuing remand were unlawful was denied by the supreme court.

Purkayastha and Chakraborty argued that the special cell of the Delhi police had not provided them with the required justification for an arrest. They also referred to the October 3 order of the Supreme Court in a different case concerning the PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act).

"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," observed Justice Gedela in his 51-page ruling.

"This Court is of the considered opinion that the remand order is sustainable in law in the given circumstances," he continued, taking into account the admission of facts, inconsistencies between the pleadings and the arguments made before this Court regarding the contested remand order. The petition is rejected in light of the outstanding applications and its lack of substance.