NewsClick Case | Supreme Court Notes That Remand Order Against Purkayastha Was Passed Before Informing His Lawyer, Questions Delhi Police

The Supreme Court on Tuesday (April 30) questioned the Delhi Police for its "hot haste" in producing Prabir Purkayastha, editor of digital portal NewsClick, before the Magistrate after his arrest without informing his lawyer.The Court also expressed surprise at the fact that the remand order was passed before the remand application was served on Purkayastha's lawyer. Raising a volley of questions at the manner in which the arrest was carried out, the bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta reserved judgment on Purkayastha's petition challening his arrest and remand in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967. He has been under custody since his arrest on October 3, 2024 in the case over alleged Chinese funding to promote "anti-national propaganda" through the digital portal. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Purkayastha, submitted that he was arrested on the evening of October 3, 2023. He was produced before the Magistrate next day, early morning at 6 AM. Sibal apprised the Court that, at that time, only the Additional Public Prosecutor was present alongwith along with legal aid counsel. It was further submitted that Purkayastha's lawyer was not informed. When Purkayastha objected to this, the Investigating officer informed his counsel through telephone, and the remand application was sent to the lawyer on WhatsApp (at around 7.07 AM). The lawyer sent the objections to remand through WhatsApp a little while later. However, the most striking aspect of these developments is that the remand order is recorded to have been passed at 6 AM. Notably, when the Additional Solicitor General SV Raju commenced his arguments, Justice Mehta categorically asked him why Purkayastha's lawyer was not informed. Without mincing any words, Justice Mehta stated: “First please answer this, why did you not inform his lawyer? What was the hot haste in producing him at 6 AM? You arrested him at 5.45 PM the previous day. You had the whole day before you. Why the haste?” Justice Gavai, echoing this sentiment, said that the principles of natural justice required that Purkayastha's lawyer be present when the remand order was passed. Elaborating, he said that the accused could have been produced at 10 AM or 11 AM instead.Defending this, ASG said that the accused was produced at 6 AM because the police wanted to do an early search. He also stated that the Trial Judge had recorded the time of remand order as 6 AM by mistake. He tried explaining to the Bench that 6 AM was the time of the production and not the order. “That cannot be the time when the remand order could have been passed. They are trying to take advantage of a mistake.,” the Union officer added. However, the Bench declined to accept this reasoning. “You just can't convince us to take a different view regarding the time Mr.Raju.,” Justice Mehta stated. Justice Mehta also reasoned that there is an assumption regarding the correctness of the time recorded in a judicial order. He firmly added that the Court will take no judicial notice of anything except what is written on the order. When ASG tried to convince the Bench by submitting that the lawyer had sent his objections after the remand application was shared with him, Justice Gavai said that the same was “redundant” and orally remarked, “This is like giving an opportunity of hearing after the order was passed.”The bench was also not impressed with the ASG's argument that the subsequent remand orders will validate the first remand, even if it is assumed to be illegal. The bench stated that if the first remand is found to be vitiated for not informing the grounds of arrest, then the subsequent remand orders will also lose their basis. The bench was hearing Purkayastha's special leave petition assailing a decision of the Delhi High Court upholding his arrest by the Delhi Police. Co-accused and NewsClick human resources head Amit Chakraborty had also approached the top court challenging his arrest, but he was allowed to withdraw his plea after he turned approver for the Enforcement Directorate and was granted a pardon.The main thrust of Sibal's arguments was that till date, the grounds of arrest have not been supplied. In aid of this contention, Sibal pointed to the Pankaj Bansal ruling in which the top court quashed arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for not furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused.He pointed out that the arrest in the case happened after the Supreme Court pronounced the judgment in the Pankaj Bansal case. Thus, the grounds of arrest must be supplied in writing in the present case. On Delhi Police's argument that the remand application contained the grounds of arrest, Sibal said that “Law makes a distinction between grounds of arrest and remand application. If grounds of arrest are given, I can inform the lawyer in 24 hours and he can defend...

NewsClick Case | Supreme Court Notes That Remand Order Against Purkayastha Was Passed Before Informing His Lawyer, Questions Delhi Police

Gyanvi Khanna

Tags