Senior journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta during a protest organised by journalists over Police actions on news portal NewsClick, at Press Club of India in New Delhi.
Credit: PTI Photo
The Delhi High Court on Friday sought the response of the city police on the pleas filed by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and HR department head Amit Chakravarty challenging their arrest in a case lodged under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela also asked the police to file replies to their applications seeking interim release till the pendency of the petitions.
The high court listed the matter for further hearing on October 9 as the first case.
Purkayastha and Chakravarty were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 and were ordered to be in their custody till October 11. Police have sealed the NewsClick's office in Delhi.
The portal has been accused of receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.
According to the FIR, a large amount of funds to the news portal came from China to "disrupt the sovereignty of India" and cause disaffection against the country.
It also alleged Purkayastha conspired with a group -- People's Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) -- to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
These foreign funds were fraudulently infused by an active member of the propaganda department of the Communist Party of China, Neville Roy Singham, it claimed.
Besides their arrest, the duo challenged the trial court’s order remanding them in police custody and sought quashing of the FIR in the case.
The high court asked the investigating officer to produce the case diary before it on Monday and ensure the medical condition of Chakravarty, who is differently-abled, is not compromised.
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, said replies to the interim prayers will be filed within a day. He urged the court to grant him some time to get instructions and list the matter for Monday.
As the counsel for Purkayastha and Chakravarty urged the high court to order their release in the interim if the matter were to be heard on Monday, Justice Gedela said interim relief cannot be granted at this stage.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, said a raid was conducted at his client's residence on the morning of October 3 and he was taken to the office of the Special Cell at Lodhi Road. He was arrested the same evening at around 7 pm.
The next day, he was taken to the residence of the trial court judge at around 6-6:30 am for production where the prosecutor and legal aid counsel were present but the family members or counsel of Purkayastha were not informed, Sibal claimed.
Sibal said the family members and counsel were later informed about the remand proceedings. They objected when told that the remand application would be sent through WhatsApp and he could file his objections using the same mode.
The remand application was sent through WhatsApp message to Purkayastha’s counsel at around 7:07 pm after which he sent a document containing detailed objections to the grant of remand on the same number, the senior lawyer said.
However, they came to know that Purkayastha had already been sent to police custody for seven days and the trial court’s order records that it was signed at 6 am, which could not have been the case as no remand order was passed at least till 7 am when the petitioner’s family member was called to join the proceedings, Sibal contended.
He said shockingly, the order also records the presence of the petitioner’s counsel through telephone though he was contacted only at 7 AM and could not have been present at 6 am.
“What is happening to our courts? That’s all I can say. Grounds of arrest are not given to me. Now there is an order of the Supreme Court that grounds of arrest are not only to be communicated but they have to be handed over to the person in writing,” he argued.
The high court orally remarked, “So far as the remand order is concerned, it was passed at 6 AM and apparently he (trial court judge) has not heard the counsel (for accused).”
The solicitor general sought time to respond to the petitions and said “I will put in my reply. Factually also, I have to take instructions. I don’t even have the papers, kindly keep the matter on Monday.”
In the morning, the matter was mentioned for urgent hearing by Sibal before a bench headed by the chief justice which allowed it for listing during the day.
On Thursday, a trial court directed the city police to provide the duo with a copy of the FIR, citing a 2016 order from the Supreme Court and a 2010 order from the Delhi High Court.
A raid was conducted on October 3 at 88 locations in Delhi and seven in other states on the suspects named in the FIR and those that surfaced in the analysis of data, the police said.
A total of 46 journalists and contributors to NewsClick were questioned on Tuesday and their mobile phones and other electronic gadgets seized.