On Monday, the Delhi High Court decided to defer its judgment regarding the petition filed by Prabir Purkayastha, the editor of NewsClick, and Amit Chakraborty, the head of HR at the organization. They had challenged their arrest and detention in a case under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela listened to the arguments of both the accused and the Delhi Police before setting aside the case for further consideration.

The court also mentioned that it would determine at a later point whether it should issue a notice and entertain the request by the accused to dismiss the FIR filed against them.

In today's hearing, the accused argued that their arrest and subsequent detention were unlawful because they were not provided with the reasons for their arrest, which they claimed violated the recent Supreme Court ruling in the case of Directorate of Enforcement vs. Roop Bansal and others (M3M case). Furthermore, they contended that they had not received any funds from China, as was alleged by the Delhi Police.

In contrast, the Delhi Police argued that the accused had intentions to jeopardize national security and integrity.

They also contended that the judgment in the M3M case would not be applicable to the current situation, as it was delivered on the same day as the arrest, specifically on October 3, and the Delhi Police were unaware of it at the time.

The court was considering a petition filed by Prabir Purkayastha, the editor of NewsClick, and Amit Chakraborty, the head of HR at NewsClick, in which they challenged their arrest, detention, and the FIR registered against them under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).

Purkayastha and Chakraborty were apprehended after a sequence of raids, prompted by allegations presented in a New York Times article, which suggested that NewsClick was receiving compensation to promote Chinese propaganda.

Both individuals were placed in police custody for seven days in the early hours of October 4. When they were not provided with a copy of the FIR, they approached a Delhi court. On October 5, the court granted their request to obtain a copy of the FIR.

According to the FIR, the accused were alleged to have unlawfully received substantial amounts of foreign funds and used them with the intent to undermine the sovereignty, unity, and security of India. The FIR stated that confidential intelligence indicated that significant foreign funds were illicitly channeled into India, involving both Indian and foreign entities. These funds, totaling crores of rupees, were allegedly acquired by Newsclick through unlawful methods over a period of five years.

The funds were purportedly injected fraudulently into the organization by Singham, who was claimed to be an active member of the Communist Party of China's Propaganda department. This was allegedly accomplished through a convoluted network of various entities.

The FIR asserted that the unlawfully redirected foreign funds were diverted by Purkayastha, along with associates Joseph Raj, Amit Chakraborty, and Bappaditya Sinha, among others.

Subsequently, Purkayastha and Chakraborty filed a petition in the High Court seeking to have the FIR dismissed.

Today in the court, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, stated that the reasons for arrest were not provided to them either at the time of their arrest or during their period of detention. He further argued that the accusations mentioned in the FIR regarding Chinese funding and related matters are untrue and baseless.

Importantly, he also alleged that there were alterations or overwriting in the remand records, suggesting potential irregularities or inconsistencies in the documentation related to their detention.

Sibal also contended that during the remand proceedings, only the legal aid counsel was present, and the accused themselves were not adequately informed or involved in the process.

In this context, Sibal referred to the recent judgment by the Supreme Court in the M3M case, emphasizing that it established the requirement for providing the grounds of arrest to the accused in writing.

Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, who was also representing the accused, argued that the failure to provide the grounds of arrest would constitute a violation of Article 22 of the Constitution, which pertains to the rights of persons who are arrested. Krishnan contended that the Magistrate's remand order is untenable and unsustainable, suggesting that it may not have been legally sound or justifiable.

Krishnan emphasized that it is the duty of the magistrate to ensure that the accused have the opportunity to express any objections they may have to their remand.

The counsel representing Chakraborty endorsed all the arguments put forth by Purkayastha but also introduced two additional points or contentions.

 Chakraborty stated, "I am suffering from 59% disability. Both my legs are paralyzed due to polio. The remand application does not mention my disability, among other things." He further argued that he was not responsible for the content published by NewsClick and  should not be grouped together with the other accused. He mentioned, "All my devices,  including laptops, have been seized. I have always cooperated when summoned. I am not a journalist or editor, and I am not in any way responsible for the content published on the NewsClick website. Throughout this process, I have been treated as part of the group without any independent assessment of my involvement."

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, representing the Delhi Police, asserted that the accused had made efforts to undermine the integrity and stability of the nation.

The Solicitor General also highlighted that Newsclick had used a term employed by China to describe Arunachal Pradesh, referring to it as the "Northern border of Myanmar." He further pointed out that the M3M judgment was issued on October 3 and uploaded on the Supreme Court's website on October 4, which coincided with the arrests that took place on October 3. Consequently, he argued that the Delhi Police were not aware of the judgment when the arrests were carried out. 

Significantly, he also mentioned that the Central government would be filing a review petition against that judgment before the Supreme Court. Additionally, he strongly objected to a claim made by the accused that the Magistrate had tampered with records, indicating that this accusation was unfounded or unsubstantiated.

The Solicitor General responded, "They made an allegation against a judicial officer of having tampered with the record, and this has to be taken very seriously. Such allegations can't be made orally or lightly. This has to be on an affidavit. They should state who came to this conclusion that the record was tampered with. They say there is a subsequent addition. The Court then inquired, "You are not disputing that it was received by WhatsApp?"

The Solicitor General replied, "No. Mr. Sibal said this was added later. I am saying the allegations that a judicial officer tampered with the record, that can't be taken lightly." He further made a suggestion, "What would happen if the remand order is set aside, you go into judicial custody. Tomorrow the remand order is getting over. I can apply for fresh remand with supply to them and let the court decide if it is required or not. It is a wrong proposition to argue that if the remand is quashed, they will be released on bail."

The Solicitor General explained, "In a case where only the remand order is being challenged, the accused is placed in judicial custody, and then they can apply for regular bail." He reiterated his stance that the arrest was lawful because it occurred before the M3M judgment was issued.

Sibal responded to the Solicitor General's submission regarding the Delhi Police not being aware of the judgment. Sibal countered the argument that the grounds for arrest were provided in the arrest memo, suggesting that he disagreed with this assertion.

He added that the fact that a review is being filed does not alter the existing law or legal requirements.

During the prior hearing on October 6, the High Court had raised concerns about the Delhi Police's omission of providing grounds for arrest in the remand application submitted by the police to secure custody of Purkayastha and Chakraborty. 

Justice Gedela had remarked that on the surface, this omission appeared to be in contradiction to a Supreme Court judgment, which could be a reference to the Supreme Court's ruling in the case involving the directors of M3M.