NewsClick case: Why was Prabir Purkayastha hastily remanded without informing his lawyer? Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday reserved its judgment on the plea by Prabir Purkayastha, the editor-in-chief of online news portal NewsClick, who has challenged his arrest and remand by the Delhi Police in connection with a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) [Prabir Purkayastha v. State of NCT of Delhi]..Before reserving the matter for judgment, a Bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta also raised questions on how the remand proceedings were conducted. The Court orally observed that the remand order was clearly passed (around 6 AM) before Purkayastha or his counsel were informed as to why he was arrested. The Court proceeded to grill the counsel for the Delhi police as to why no advance notice was given to Purkayastha's lawyer about his remand. "Why did you not inform his lawyer in advance? Please tell us. You had 24 hours. What was the haste? You could have produced him at 10 AM! Who is the remand counsel and why was his lawyer not informed? Can remand be granted without informing accused of grounds of arrest?" Justice Mehta asked. "Principles of natural justice require that it (remand hearing) should have been kept at 11 AM. Justice has to be seen to be done also. What was the need to keep legal aid counsel instead of informing (his regular counsel)?" Justice Gavai added. .Purkayastha was booked under the UAPA and arrested on October 3, 2023, following a series of raids conducted in the wake of allegations made in a New York Times article that NewsClick was being paid to boost Chinese propaganda.NewsClick HR head Amit Chakraborty was also arrested by the police in the same case..Purkayastha moved the Supreme Court challenging his arrest and remand after the Delhi High Court upheld the trial court's decision to remand him to police custody. Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal appeared for the editor on Tuesday and questioned how a digital portal could be a threat to sovereignty. "Digital media can be used for many things. That blanket statement may not be correct, it depends on how the information is disseminated," Justice Mehta said, in response.Sibal proceeded to argue that the Delhi High Court was wrong in holding that it was sufficient compliance of UAPA to orally communicate the grounds of arrest to Purkayastha (instead of conveying them in written form). This was contrary to the reasoning in the top court's Pankaj Bansal judgment, Sibal contended."Remand application may or may not contain the grounds of arrest. Even FIR was not given to us. So what is the point of saying remand copy was given to us? Not telling me grounds, is that sufficient compliance?" Sibal asked..Additional Solicitor General SV Raju and Advocate Zoheb Hossain appeared for the Delhi police and replied that detailed grounds of arrest were eventually forwarded to the accused."But after the remand order. Like giving an opportunity to hear after judgment," Justice Gavai pointed out. The concern was echoed by Justice Mehta, who said:"It is about sanctity of proceedings. When it was passed at 6 AM, there were no grounds of arrest shared. If WhatsApp message (to counsel) was at 7, then order could not have been before 8, 8.30. Entire proceedings was without audience.".Hossain added that not furnishing written grounds of arrest in UAPA cases did not violate the Constitution. He asserted that the Pankaj Bansal judgment cannot be applied in such matters. He also stressed that custody (after remand) and arrest were not synonymous.Sibal, however, maintained that the grounds of arrest cannot be withheld from the accused in any case."How will understand the information if I am only conveyed it orally? What is the constitutional basis of hiding it? Information by itself cannot be withheld. That is all," Sibal said. .The Court proceeded to reserve its verdict in the matter..As per the First Information Report (FIR), Purkayastha is alleged to have illegally received crores of rupees in foreign funds and used the same with an intention to "disrupt the sovereignty, unity and security of India."The FIR claimed that substantial foreign funds were illegally funnelled into India by both Indian and foreign entities. .Following their arrest, Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborty initially moved the Delhi High Court challenging their arrest, remand and the FIR lodged against them under the UAPA.They argued that their arrest and remand were illegal since they were not supplied with the grounds of arrest, in violation of the Supreme Court judgment in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors (M3M case).However, the High Court rejected the said argument, holding that the Pankal Bansal judgment is not squarely applicable to arrests made under the UAPA. This led to the appeal before the apex court..Pertinently, Chakraborty has since turned an approver for the prosecution. Thus, he withdrew his plea against the arrest. The Delhi Police recently filed its chargesheet against Prabir Purkayastha and NewsClick. A Delhi court on Tuesday took cognisance of this chargesheet. The matter is reportedly listed before the trial court on May 31 for framing of charges.