NewsClick Editor Released: Supreme Court Says Arrest by Delhi Police Illegal

The Grounds for Arrest Were Not Adequately Communicated to the Accused

Newsreel Asia Insight #223
May 16, 2024

On May 15, the Supreme Court of India declared the arrest and subsequent remand of NewsClick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha by the Delhi police as illegal, ordering his immediate release unless further conditions are met by the trial court. The Court criticised the handling of the remand process for Purkayastha, who has been in custody since October 3, 2023, under charges stemming from the controversial Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

The Court highlighted that Purkayastha and his counsel were not provided with a copy of the remand application before the remand order was issued on Oct. 4, 2023, which they found to be a critical procedural error, as reported by Live Law.

Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta, presiding over the case, noted that this oversight compromised the legality of the arrest and remand, stating, “There is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to conclude that the failure to provide a copy of the remand application vitiates the arrest and the subsequent remand of the appellant.”

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, argued that the grounds for arrest were not adequately communicated to his client as required by law. The opposition, represented by Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju for the Delhi Police, contended that the remand application sufficed as notification of the grounds. However, the Supreme Court referenced its prior judgment in Pankaj Bansal to reinforce the necessity for written communication of arrest grounds.

The failure to provide a copy of the remand application to an accused individual and their counsel is significant for several key reasons related to fairness and the core principles of justice.

The provision of the remand application is fundamental to ensuring that the accused understands the reasons for their arrest and detention. This information is crucial for preparing an effective defence. Without access to the specific allegations and the evidence supporting them, the defence cannot effectively counter the arguments presented by the prosecution or challenge the legality and validity of the remand and arrest.

Justice not only needs to be done, but it must also be seen to be done. Transparency in legal procedures upholds public confidence in the judicial system. By ensuring that all legal documents related to a case are accessible to the accused and their legal team, the court system demonstrates its commitment to openness and transparency. This also helps prevent any misunderstandings or misinterpretations of the legal actions being taken.

The requirement to furnish a copy of the remand application is often embedded in national and international legal frameworks as part of the rights guaranteed to an individual under arrest. These rights include the right to be informed of the charges against them in a language they understand and in sufficient detail, allowing them to prepare their defence. This aligns with the principles set forth in various human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which emphasise the importance of procedural fairness and the right to a fair trial.

Ensuring that all procedural steps, such as the provision of remand applications, are followed correctly acts as a safeguard against potential abuse of power by law enforcement agencies. It checks arbitrary arrests and detentions and ensures that every step taken by law enforcement is justifiable, recorded and reviewable by a court of law.

For legal advocates, having access to the remand application enables them to scrutinise the legal and factual basis of the remand. This allows them to identify any potential legal flaws or procedural violations that could be grounds for challenging the arrest or seeking remedies for their client, including appeals, bail, or even dismissal of charges if due process violations are significant.

During the proceedings, the justices also expressed concern about the “hot haste” with which the Delhi Police acted, particularly in presenting Purkayastha to the magistrate at an unusual early hour without proper notification to his legal counsel. This rush was further criticised when it was revealed that the remand order was passed before the remand application had been served to Purkayastha’s lawyer.

The arrest of Purkayastha was part of a larger crackdown on NewsClick, an independent media outlet, which occurred amid allegations of receiving funds from foreign sources linked to Chinese interests. In October 2023, Delhi Police’s Special Cell targeted 46 journalists and editors associated with NewsClick under UAPA and the Indian Penal Code (IPC), raising alarms about press freedom in India.

Reports from various media sources, including The Wire and The New York Times, suggest that NewsClick was accused of engaging in activities such as money laundering and spreading propaganda, ostensibly under the influence of foreign funds, specifically from American millionaire Neville Roy Singham. These allegations have been vehemently contested by NewsClick and viewed by many as attempts to stifle critical journalism under the guise of national security.

In response, 15 media associations appealed to the Chief Justice of India, highlighting the oppressive conditions under which journalists operate.