NewsClick editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakravarty moved the Delhi high court, seeking to quash the FIR registered by Delhi Police’s special cell under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act for allegedly receiving money for pro-China propaganda.
The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing by senior advocate Kapil Sibal before a bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Urging the bench also comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula to list the plea today Sibal said,
“This is the Newsclick matter. Arrest has been made illegally and in violation of the Supreme Court decisions,” the senior lawyer said as he urged the bench to list the matter for hearing today itself.
The court agreed to hear the matter on Friday. “Alright,” responded the bench, also comprising Justice Sanjeev Narula.
Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the special cell of the Delhi Police on Tuesday. Police have sealed the NewsClick’s office in Delhi. The portal has been accused of receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.
On Thursday, a trial court had directed the city police to provide the duo with a copy of the FIR, citing a 2016 order of the Supreme Court and a 2010 order of the Delhi high court.
Additional sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur directed the Delhi Police to provide the duo with a copy of the FIR, citing a 2016 order of the Supreme Court and a 2010 order of the Delhi High Court.
Allowing the applications, ASJ Kaur directed the investigating officer (IO) concerned to furnish the certified copy of the FIR “as per law” to the accused.
During the proceedings on Thursday, Chakravarty’s advocate argued that though the offences alleged against his client under the UAPA were “serious”, there were no statutory grounds for the prosecution to deny him a copy of the FIR.
Purkayastha’s counsel, advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana, claimed it was the accused’s right to get a copy of the FIR.
Special Ppublic prosecutor Atul Shrivastava vehemently opposed the applications, saying the case was “sensitive” and the investigation was still at an initial stage.
He cited a Supreme Court judgment to say in case of an accused not being provided a copy of FIR because of its “sensitive nature,” the accused has to first approach the police commissioner, who would then form a committee within eight weeks to consider the request. The SPP said the accused must follow the “step-by-step procedure” prescribed by the apex court.
The application filed by the accused was “premature” and they cannot “directly jump before the court”, Shrivastava added.
“We have already provided the grounds for arrest and the reasons for further remand. We have already complied with the provisions,” he said.
Citing the remand application, the SPP said the accused undermined the unity and territorial integrity of the country, besides engaging in a discussion regarding a map of India without Kashmir and showing Arunachal Pradesh as a disputed area. The accused received ₹115 crore in the guise of foreign funding, he said.
(With inputs from PTI)
