SC seeks Delhi Police's reply on pleas of Newsclick founder, HR head against arrest under UAPA

Representational Picture/iStock

Supreme Court Thursday issued notice to Delhi police on pleas filed by Newsclick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakraborty challenging their arrest under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra sought a response from Delhi Police and posted the matter for hearing on October 30.

On October 16, the top court agreed to list the matter urgently after Sibal mentioned it before the bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud. The CJI had asked senior advocate Kapil Sibal to circulate the case papers and said he would take a call on urgent listing of the matter.

The Delhi High Court had on October 13 dismissed their pleas against arrest and subsequent police remand in the case. Both were arrested by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police on October 3.

They subsequently moved the high court challenging the arrest as well as the seven-day police custody, and sought immediate release as interim relief.

The court, however, refused to grant them relief, saying there was no procedural infirmity or violation of the provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in arresting them.

Also read: Dahisar-Bhayander Elevated Road: ‘We are owners of the salt-pan land, not lessees'

The trial court had on October 10 sent them to judicial custody for 10 days.

The city police has lodged cases against the two under anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.

According to 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.

It also alleged that Purkayastha conspired with a group -- People's Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) -- to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls. PTI MNL MNL

The Delhi High Court last week rejected their pleas and 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." (With inputs from agencies)