NewsClick Arrests | 'Not A Penny Came From China, Grounds Of Arrest Not Provided': Prabir Purkayastha To Delhi HC As It Reserves Order In His Plea

The Delhi High Court on Monday reserved its Judgement in pleas filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and Human Resources head Amit Chakraborty challenging their remand order in the UAPA case registered following allegations of the portal receiving money for pro-China propaganda.Justice Tushar Rao Gedela reserved the order after hearing counsels for both Purkayastha, Chakraborty and the Delhi Police for over 2 hours. Regarding the challenge to the UAPA FIR registered by Delhi Police’s Special Cell, the court will decide if notice has to be issued.It may be noted that in their pleas, Purkayastha and Chakraborty have challenged the UAPA FIR and the trial court order remanding them to police custody for seven days till October 10.Arguments before the CourtAt the outset, appearing for Purkayastha, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal strongly argued that the NewsClick founder was not supplied with the grounds of arrest. Taking the court through the allegations against Purkayastha and others in the UAPA case, Sibal also claimed that 'not a penny' was received by them from China. On the other hand, appearing for the Delhi Police, Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta submitted a reply, as directed by the Bench in its last order, was filed in the matter, stating that the arrested persons were in fact “informed” about grounds of arrest. Mehta also said that allegations involved in the matter are that about Rs. 75 crores were received from China and that the accused persons allegedly ensured that the stability and integrity of the country is compromised. He said that the offences alleged are very serious.Referring to the response filed by Delhi Police stating that Purkayastha was served with grounds of arrest, Sibal submitted that the grounds of arrest are different from reasons and even the reasons provided are also different.Senior Advocate Dayan Krishnan, also appearing for Purkayastha, submitted that Purkayastha's right under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India has been violated as his client was neither provided with the grounds of his arrest nor was he allowed to have his lawyer at the time of passing of remand order.In this regard, Senior Counsel Krishnan referred to the Supreme Court's last week judgment in the case of Pankaj Bansal vs. Union of India 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 844 (aka M3M Case), wherein the Top Court held that a copy of written grounds of arrest has to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.In this backdrop, referring to the trial court's order remanding Purkayastha to 7 days of police custody, Krishnan argued that in its order, the concerned Magistrate did not state that he had satisfied himself that the accused had access to a lawyer or he had been provided with the grounds of arrest.Krishnan strongly flagged the issue of the non-availability of a lawyer to Purkasyastha at the time of passing the remand order. He submitted that at the relevant point of time, the Magistrate had a duty to satisfy himself as to whether the accused had any objection to remand, however, since he had no access to his lawyer, he could not have objected to the remand being given. On the other hand, justifying the remand order as well as Delhi Police's act to arrest the accused persons, SGI Tushar Mehta, referring to Section 43B of UAPA (Procedure of arrest, seizure), said that textually, the provision doesn't require supply of the reasons and it only requires informing the accused about the grounds of arrest. Mehta added that the provision was a slight departure from Article 22 of the Constitution of India."This (Section 43B) was complied with, we intimated to him the grounds of arrest. This fact is not disputed. He was not supplied, it's an admitted fact. He was informed about the grounds of arrest and was produced before a special court within time," he submitted.Regarding the alleged violation of Pankaj Bansal's judgment in the matter, SGI Mehta submitted that the Supreme Court's Judgment was uploaded on October 04 and that it will not apply to the arrest which happened on October 03 as the words used in the judgment is “henceforth”, meaning thereby that it will have a prospective effect.He also apprised the bench that a review petition is being filed to challenge Pankaj Bansal's Judgment. More details here: Centre To File Review Against Supreme Court's Judgment Directing ED To Inform Grounds Of Arrest In Writing"Before 4th (October) if the arrest has taken place without supplying of the grounds, in this case the arrest happened on 3rd, then I can't be found foul of Pankaj Bansal judgment," he submitted.In response to this, Sibal argued that the whole ground in Pankaj Bansal's case was that the grounds of the arrest weren't supplied and that only if the word 'henceforth' has been used in the judgment, it does not mean that it will have a prospective effect.He also contended that since the Supreme Court signed the judgment digitally on October 03, the same will apply to...

NewsClick Arrests | 'Not A Penny Came From China, Grounds Of Arrest Not Provided': Prabir Purkayastha To Delhi HC As It Reserves Order In His Plea

Nupur Thapliyal

Tags