- Home
- /
- Top Stories
- /
- NewsClick Case |After Turning...
NewsClick Case |After Turning Approver, HR Head Amit Chakraborty Withdraws Petition In Supreme Court Against Arrest
Awstika Das
22 Jan 2024 10:06 AM GMT
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 22) allowed NewsClick human resources head and recently-turned approver Amit Chakraborty to withdraw his plea challenging his arrest by the Delhi police. He was arrested along with Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and editor-in-chief of the news portal in October last year. Last week, Chakraborty was allowed by a Delhi court to turn approver in the case,...
The Supreme Court on Monday (January 22) allowed NewsClick human resources head and recently-turned approver Amit Chakraborty to withdraw his plea challenging his arrest by the Delhi police. He was arrested along with Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and editor-in-chief of the news portal in October last year. Last week, Chakraborty was allowed by a Delhi court to turn approver in the case, and was granted a pardon.
A bench of Justices BR Gavai, Sanjay Karol, and Sandeep Mehta was hearing the special leave petitions by the duo assailing a decision of the Delhi High Court upholding their arrest by the Delhi Police in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act over alleged Chinese funding to promote anti-national propaganda.
The hearing today was adjourned by the bench, and directed to be re-listed next Tuesday. However, in a notable development, the bench was informed by Chakraborty's lawyer that he wanted to withdraw his petition. Last week, a Delhi court allowed NewsClick's human resources head to turn approver in this case. Chakraborty moved the application in December expressing his willingness to disclose information in relation to the case to the Delhi police. Additional sessions judge Hardeep Kaur also granted him a pardon in the NewsClick matter.
Additional Solicitor General SV Raju said, "Let him withdraw if that's what he wants. Insofar as the other matter is concerned, it will have to be re-heard."
After this brief courtroom exchange, allowed Chakraborty's request and adjourned the proceedings.
Questioning the legality of their arrest, the petitioners have contended that the host of criminal charges he has been slapped with, including of allegedly committing offences under Sections 13, 16, 17, 18, and 22 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, as well as Sections 153A and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, are not tenable. The main thrust of their argument, however, is the non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the time of Purkayastha's arrest. In aid of this contention, they have 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 detenus.
The Delhi police, however, has insisted that the requirement under Article 22 of the Constitution was met inasmuch as the two were informed of the reasons for their arrest. It has been maintained that the Pankaj Bansal ruling would not apply to offences under the UAPA, since it was handed out in PMLA's specific context.
Background
On October 13, the Delhi High Court dismissed Purkayastha's and Chakraborty's pleas challenging a trial court order remanding them to seven days of police custody in the UAPA case. They had argued that the grounds of arrest had not been supplied to them in writing, with a copy of the first information report (FIR) being provided only after they approached the court. The duo placed reliance on Supreme Court's recent judgment in Pankaj Bansal quashing arrests by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) for not furnishing the grounds of arrest in writing to the detenus. On the other hand, Solicitor-General Tushar Mehta contended before the high court that while the grounds of arrest had not been supplied, the duo had been informed of them.
Ultimately, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela upheld the police remand order, holding that the grounds of arrest had been conveyed to them and as such, there was no procedural infirmity or violation of any provisions under UAPA or the Constitution. The single judge also observed that the Supreme Court's judgment in Pankaj Bansal, directing the ED to inform the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, cannot be said to be squarely applicable to a case arising under the UAPA.
2. Amit Chakraborty v. State | Diary No. 43226 of 2023
