+
 
For the best experience, open
m.thewire.in
on your mobile browser or Download our App.

NewsClick Case: SC Pulls Up Delhi Police for Flouting Norms During Purkayastha's Arrest

Justice Sandeep Mehta expressed surprise over the fact that the remand order was passed before the remand application was served on Purkayastha's lawyer.
NewsClick owner and editor Prabir Purkayastha. Photo: YouTube screengrab

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 30, pulled up the Delhi Police on the manner in which NewsClick founder and editor Prabir Purkayastha was arrested in October last year.

Justice Sandeep Mehta pointedly asked the Delhi Police what was the “hot haste” in producing Purkayastha at 6 am before the magistrate on October 4. He has been under custody since his arrest on October 3 last year in the case over alleged Chinese funding to promote “anti-national propaganda” through the digital portal.

“First please answer this, why did you not inform his lawyer? What was the hot haste in producing him at 6 am? You arrested him at 5.45 pm the previous day. You had the whole day before you. Why the haste?” said Justice Mehta, according to Livelaw.in.

Justice Mehta also expressed surprise over the fact that the remand order was passed before the remand application was served on Purkayastha’s lawyer.

Justice B.R. Gavai, another judge on the Bench, also said principles of natural justice required that Purkayastha’s lawyer be present when the remand order was passed. He said the accused could have been produced at 10 am or 11 am instead.

According to Kapil Sibal, Purkayastha’s lawyer, the information regarding his remand was sent to his counsel only when Purkayastha objected to his being produced before the magistrate at 6 am without the knowledge of his counsel. Sibal said the investigating officer had only sent the remand order to his counsel at 7:07 am on WhatsApp after Purkayastha pressed for it.

The Delhi police had filed an 8,000-page chargesheet in the case on March 30 against NewsClick and Purkayastha under sections 153A (promoting enmity), 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for a terrorist act), 18 (conspiracy), 22C (offences by companies, societies, and trusts), 39 (offence relating to support given to a terrorist organisation) and 40 (offence of raising fund for a terrorist organisation) of Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Make a contribution to Independent Journalism
facebook twitter