“This is the NewsClick matter … the journalists are in police custody … a 70-year-old plus man is in custody,” Sibal told the bench while making a mention for an urgent listing.
Supreme Court of India
NewsClick’s founder and editor in chief, Prabir Purkayastha, and its human resources head, Amit Chakraborty moved the Supreme Court on Monday challenging their arrest under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) over the alleged Chinese funding to promote anti-national propaganda.
A bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for both Purkayastha and Chakraborty, to circulate the papers of the case and he would take a call on listing the matter.
“This is the NewsClick matter … the journalists are in police custody … a 70-year-old plus man is in custody,” Sibal told the bench while making a mention for an urgent listing.
Advertisement
Purkayastha and Chakraborty have approached the Supreme Court challenging the Delhi high court’s order upholding the trial court order remanding them to police custody. They have since been remanded to judicial custody.
The two were arrested by the special cell of the Delhi Police on October 3 after it searched 30 locations connected with the digital news organization and its journalists in a case registered under the UAPA in the wake of a New York Times report alleging that NewsClick received money for pro-China propaganda.
Both had moved the high court challenging their arrest as well as the 7-day police custody and sought immediate release as an interim relief.
As per the FIR, a large amount of funds to the news portal allegedly came from China to “disrupt the sovereignty of India” and cause disaffection against the country.
The Delhi Police has also alleged that Purkayastha had conspired with a group – People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism – to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.
Rejecting their plea, the high court had, on October 13, said it is of the view that “the fact that serious offences affecting the stability, integrity, sovereignty, and national security have been alleged against the petitioner, this court is not inclined to pass any favourable orders.”
Advertisement
