NewsClick Row: SC to Hear Purkayastha and Chakravarty’s Pleas Challenging Arrest Tomorrow

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing on October 19 to consider the pleas filed by Newsclick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha and the website’s human resources head, Amit Chakravarty.

Both individuals are challenging their arrest and detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which is connected to alleged Chinese funding for the promotion of anti-national propaganda.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra has adjourned the matter to the following day. Justice Gavai mentioned that his fellow judge, Justice Mishra, also intends to review the case files.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, requested the bench to at least issue notice to the Delhi police. In response, the bench stated that it will hear the matter the next day.

Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty have filed petitions with the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court’s decision to uphold the trial court’s order that placed them in police custody, followed by judicial custody.

Their arrest occurred on October 3, following an investigation by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police that involved the search of 30 locations associated with the online news portal and its journalists. The arrest was made under the UAPA, based on allegations of receiving funds to promote pro-China propaganda.

The FIR alleged that a significant amount of money had purportedly come from China to Newsclick with the intent to “disrupt the sovereignty of India” and foster disaffection against the country. The investigative agency also asserted that Prabir Purkayastha had conspired with a group called the People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) to undermine the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

The Delhi High Court had previously dismissed their pleas, stating that it believed “serious offenses affecting the stability, integrity, sovereignty, and national security have been alleged against the petitioner.” Consequently, the court was not inclined to issue any favorable orders in their favor.