_edited.png)
In a scathing rebuke directed at the Delhi Police Special Cell, the Supreme Court has criticized the "hot haste" displayed in the arrest and subsequent proceedings against Prabir Purkayastha, the editor of NewsClick. The apex court, led by Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, questioned the necessity of producing Purkayastha before a magistrate at 6 am without prior notification to his legal counsel. The court remarked that the principles of natural justice dictate that sufficient time should be afforded for the accused and their legal representation to prepare for such proceedings.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, argued before the court that his client's arrest was conducted without providing the grounds for arrest, rendering it "illegal." Sibal highlighted the irregularities surrounding Purkayastha's production before the trial court at 6 am without the presence of his lawyer. Despite claims by the prosecution that a remand lawyer was present, the court expressed concern over the absence of Purkayastha's legal counsel during such a critical stage of the proceedings.
The court further criticized the conduct of the probe agency, emphasizing the importance of not only delivering justice but also ensuring that it is perceived to have been done. The justices underscored the necessity of communicating the grounds for arrest before the issuance of a remand order, highlighting the fundamental right of the accused to challenge such actions. They cautioned that failure to provide grounds for arrest could jeopardize subsequent remand orders and the integrity of the legal process.
The Attorney General representing the Delhi Police Special Cell contended that Purkayastha's legal team was aware of the impending production before the magistrate within 24 hours. However, the court remained unconvinced, stressing the significance of formally communicating the grounds for arrest to the accused.
Moreover, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the investigative agency's failure to file a proper chargesheet within the stipulated 180-day period, noting deficiencies in obtaining proper sanctions. These lapses further underscored the irregularities surrounding Purkayastha's arrest and subsequent detention.
Purkayastha has been in custody since October 3, 2024, in connection with allegations of receiving Chinese funding to promote purported "anti-national propaganda" through the NewsClick platform. The Supreme Court has reserved its orders on Purkayastha's plea challenging his arrest and detention under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) of 1967, signaling a critical examination of the legality and procedural fairness of the case.
LinkedIn Link - https://www.linkedin.com/company/legal-soch-foundation/ 💼📚👩⚖️
Telegram Link - https://t.me/+1-pfOBHo2a84MWRl
WhatsApp Link - https://chat.whatsapp.com/IMfN12mwJhELhOQLLFOLTb
Comments