Meanwhile, the Delhi Police said a large amount of funds came to the news portal from China to "disrupt the sovereignty of India".
Published Oct 06, 2023 | 9:10 PM ⚊ Updated Oct 06, 2023 | 9:11 PM
(Representational image/Creative Commons)
A trial court’s order remanding NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources Department head Amit Chakravarty in police custody came under the scanner in the Delhi High Court on Friday, 6 October.
The high court said there appeared to be something missing as the order was apparently passed without the counsels of the arrested individuals.
Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on 3 October and have been booked under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, or the UAPA.
Currently in police custody, they rushed to the high court challenging their arrest and sought immediate release as an interim relief.
However, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela said such a relief could not be granted at this stage as the court has to also hear the counsel for police, and listed the matter for further hearing on October 9 as the first case.
“The only difficulty is that the allegations don’t seem to be of such nature that you can be released immediately,” the high court said.
Besides their arrest, the duo also challenged the trial court’s order remanding them in seven-day police custody and sought quashing of the FIR in the case.
The high court issued notice and sought the Delhi Police’s response on the two petitions challenging their arrest and remand order, and seeking the quashing of the FIR.
It also asked the police to file a reply with regard to the interim applications seeking release till the pendency of the petitions.
The high court asked the investigating officer to produce the case diary before it on Monday and ensure that the medical condition of Chakravarty, who is differently-abled, was not compromised.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, said replies to the interim prayers would be filed within a day. He urged the court to grant him some time to get instructions and list the matter for Monday.
“I don’t have the copy, I will put it in my reply to this (petitions and applications). Several facts are stated and are pleaded (that) I do not know. Factually also, I will have to take instructions. I don’t even have the papers, kindly keep the matter on Monday,” he said.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, said he had shown the documents to the court and his client was entitled to release as the arrest was illegal and no grounds for it were conveyed to him.
He claimed violation of the Delhi High Court Rules, which say that an accused is entitled to counsel, and asserted the remand order was passed without hearing Purkayastha’s lawyer or considering his response to the remand application.
“This is completely illegal. His custody can’t be continued. He must be released forthwith,” Sibal contended.
Justice Gedela orally remarked, “Mr Mehta, just tell us one thing. So far as the order that has been passed on remand, there appears to be something which is missing there because it says it was passed at 6 am and apparently, he (the trial court judge) has not heard the counsel (for the accused).”
Sibal submitted that on its own terms, the remand order was unsustainable.
To this, the judge said, “That’s precisely why I am saying we’ll have to give them a hearing. But if I hold it unsustainable, it goes. The whole thing goes.”
Sibal responded on Purakayastha’s behalf: “Then why should I be inside (in custody) over the weekend? Give me interim protection. Prima facie if I have a case, grant me interim release and hear it on Monday, I will go back again.”
According to the FIR, a large amount of funds to the news portal came from China to “disrupt the sovereignty of India” and cause disaffection against the country.
It also alleged that Purkayastha conspired with a group — the People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) — to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
These foreign funds were fraudulently infused by an active member of the propaganda department of the Communist Party of China named Neville Roy Singham, it claimed.
During the arguments, Sibal said a raid was conducted at the residence of his client on the morning of 3 October and he was taken to the office of the Special Cell at Lodhi Road. He was arrested at around 7 pm the same day.
The next day, he was taken to the residence of the trial court judge at around 6-6.30 am for production where the prosecutor and legal aid counsel were present, but the family members or counsel of Purkayastha were not informed, Sibal claimed.
Sibal said the family members and counsel were later informed about the remand proceedings. They objected when told that the remand application would be sent through WhatsApp and he could file his objections using the same mode.
The remand application was sent through WhatsApp message to Purkayastha’s counsel at around 7.07 pm, after which he sent a document containing detailed objections to the grant of remand on the same number, the senior lawyer said.
However, they came to know that Purkayastha had already been sent to police custody for seven days and the trial court’s order recorded that it was signed at 6 am, which could not have been the case as no remand order was passed at least till 7 am when the petitioner’s family member was called to join the proceedings, Sibal contended.
He said that shockingly, the order also recorded the presence of the petitioner’s counsel through telephone though he was contacted only at 7 am and could not have been present at 6 am.
“What is happening to our courts? That’s all I can say. Grounds of arrest are not given to me. Now there is an order of the Supreme Court that grounds of arrest are not only to be communicated but they have to be handed over to the person in writing,” he argued.
As the court pointed out that apparently in the remand application the police had not disclosed that grounds of arrest were communicated to the two individuals, the solicitor general said there was more to it than met the eye.
“We understand that but if there is a judgment of the SC staring in the eyes,” the high court said, referring to a recent order of the apex court directing the ED to henceforth furnish the ground of arrest to an accused.
In the morning, the matter was mentioned for urgent hearing by Sibal before a bench headed by the chief justice which allowed it for listing during the day.
Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 and were ordered to be in their custody till 11 October. The police have sealed the NewsClick’s office in Delhi.
The portal has been accused of receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.
On Thursday, a trial court directed the Delhi police to provide the duo with a copy of the FIR, citing a 2016 order from the Supreme Court and a 2010 order from the Delhi High Court.
A raid was conducted on 3 October at 88 locations in Delhi and seven in other states on the suspects named in the FIR and those that surfaced in the analysis of data, the police said.
A total of 46 journalists and contributors to NewsClick were questioned on Tuesday and their mobile phones and other electronic gadgets seized.
(Disclaimer: The headline, subheads, and intro of this report along with the photos may have been reworked by South First. The rest of the content is from a syndicated feed, and has been edited for style.)
