Purkayastha was arrested by Delhi Police on Oct 3 along with NewsClick's HR head Amit Chakraborty for allegedly receiving illegal funding from China, routed through the US with the intention of undermining India's sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Last year, the arrest of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder and editor of the NewsClick website, under a stringent antiterrorism law was deemed unlawful by the court, which has now ordered his release on bail.
Purkayastha was detained in October, approximately two months subsequent to a New York Times report alleging that his English-language news platform had received financial support from a network promoting Chinese propaganda. Of
Facing charges of receiving foreign funds and engaging in criminal conspiracy, the 75-year-old journalist was apprehended under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), a stringent antiterrorism legislation known for its stringent bail provisions.
Also Read
Supreme Court declares NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha’s arrest ‘invalid’, orders immediate release
The FIR listed serious charges Sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for terrorist acts), 18 (conspiracy), and 22(C) (offences by companies, trusts) of the UAPA, and Sections 153 A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
Purkayastha was taken to a special judge’s residence for a remand hearing on October 4, 2023, without prior notice. His lawyers were informed about the proceedings over a phone call around 7 AM.
"There is no hesitation in the mind of the court that the grounds of arrest were not provided, which vitiates the arrest. The appellant is entitled to release from custody after the Pankaj Bansal case. The remand order is invalid,"
said Justice Mehta.
Representing Mr. Purkayastha, senior lawyer Kapil Sibal revealed that his client was arrested on October 3 and brought before the magistrate at 6 am the following day. Sibal emphasized that during this proceeding, only legal aid attorneys and the additional public prosecutor were present, while Mr. Purkayastha's own lawyer was not notified.
In response to Mr. Purkayastha's objection, the investigating officer eventually informed his lawyer via telephone, and the remand application was subsequently sent to him via WhatsApp, as stated by Mr. Sibal.
The decision made by a panel headed by Justice B. R. Gavai holds significance as it underscores the importance of adhering to proper procedures and due process as safeguards against arbitrary actions, even in cases involving stringent terrorism charges.
Thanks for visiting!!
Comments