NewsClick Case | Supplying Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Not Necessary Under UAPA : Delhi Police To Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday (December 11) adjourned the pleas by NewsClick founder and editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakraborty challenging their recent arrest.A bench of Justices BR Gavai, PS Narasimha, and Prashant Kumar Mishra 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. Last month, this case was mentioned before Chief Justice DY Chandrachud by Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal for an urgent hearing. Subsequently, when the matter was taken up, the bench issued notice in both petitions, seeking the Delhi police's response.During the latest hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Purkayastha, questioned the legality of his arrest. 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, were not tenable, the senior counsel asserted. "Even if you accept everything, no offence is made out under the UAPA," Sibal told the court. The main thrust of his argument, however, was the non-supply of the grounds of arrest at the time of Purkayastha's arrest. Pointing 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, Sibal argued -"There are no grounds. The special public prosecutor submitted that the grounds of arrest were duly informed to the accused at the time of arrest and everything has been mentioned in the arrest memo. He further said that the family members were also informed about the arrest. In the counter-affidavit of the State, it is submitted that the law does not require the grounds or time of arrest to be mentioned in the remand application. The State has said that these were mentioned in the case diary that was perused by the special judge, who was pleased to grant police custody. They have also mentioned that the two arrestees saw and signed the arrest memo. This is their stand. Obviously, the two were not served with grounds of arrest. Referring to the Pankaj Bansal judgment, the high court says that the UAPA is different than PMLA. The language is similar. You cannot differentiate between the UAPA and the PMLA on this ground and ex facie, this order is bad. In any case, Article 22 of the Constitution is common to both. And, Bansal says orally communicating reasons for arrest is no communication. It has no value at all." Sibal also raised alarms over the time mentioned in the special judge's order remanding Purkayastha to police custody. The senior counsel informed the court that although he was produced before the magistrate at 6 in the morning, the order was passed much later. "What is happening? This must be pre-planned. They are saying that 6 AM is mentioned in the order because that was the time when Purkayastha was produced. But this is against a high court rule saying that an order granting remand should be written at the time when it was announced in the presence of the accused. There's another rule requiring a magistrate to allow time to an accused wishing to be represented by a counsel who will argue against a remand...Both have been violated."Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for co-accused Chakraborty, echoed the submissions made by Sibal. He also mentioned that Amit Chakraborty was arrested despite not being mentioned in the first information report (FIR) that named Purkayastha, Gautam Navlakha, and Neville Roy Singham. According to the FIR, Dave explained, Chakraborty is a shareholder of the company owning NewsClick. Dave added, "There are many other shareholders who are neither arrested, nor proceeded against. Chakraborty holds 0.092 percent in the company. He has no control over the content nor the administration of the company."Although Purkayastha's lawyer was present at the time of the remand, Chakraborty was unrepresented, Dave told the court. "Chakraborty challenged the remand order in the high court, which says it cannot countenance how he got hold of the remand application or the order, when there was no counsel before the special judge appearing on his behalf. There's nothing secretive about this and he has stated in his petition that he got it from the co-accused. Not only this, it was the judicial officer's responsibility to ensure that there was no fundamental right violation of an accused or an arrestee. Since the remand order is bad not because of a technicality but because of a fundamental right violation, it cannot be cured by subsequent remand orders."Requirement under Article 22 of the Constitution met, supplying grounds of arrest in writing not required: ASG SV...

NewsClick Case | Supplying Grounds Of Arrest In Writing Not Necessary Under UAPA : Delhi Police To Supreme Court

Awstika Das

Tags