On Friday, the Delhi High Court ruled that the recent decision by the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India & Ors does not directly apply to arrests made under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

In the Pankaj Bansal case, the Supreme Court ruled that when dealing with cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the reasons for arrest must be communicated to the accused in writing.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela made this statement when he dismissed the petitions submitted by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and the website's HR head, Amit Chakraborty, who had challenged their detention in the UAPA case filed against them.

The argument presented by counsel representing Purkayastha and Chakraborty was that they were not given a written explanation for their arrest. They contended that Sections 19(1) and (2) of the PMLA, along with Sections 43A and 43B of the UAPA, should be interpreted in conjunction. Consequently, it was argued that the failure of the Delhi Police to provide the arrest grounds in writing to the petitioners violated the Supreme Court's ruling.

After a thorough examination of the case, Justice Gedela noted that Sections 19(1) and (2) of the PMLA and Sections 43A and 43B of the UAPA are not equivalent or similar in nature. He emphasized that the UAPA is primarily concerned with safeguarding national security, and the sensitivity of the information and intelligence gathered by investigative authorities under the UAPA holds greater significance compared to that under the PMLA.

The court held the opinion that the circumstances and legal principles presented in the Supreme Court case of Pankaj Bansal were completely different from those in the current case.

The Court concluded that the legal precedent established by the Supreme Court in the case of Pankaj Bansal, which relied on V. Senthil Balaji and pertained solely to the provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), cannot, under any reasonable interpretation, be extended to apply to cases arising under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

However,  the Bench recommended that the Delhi Police should, in the future, furnish written grounds for arrest, taking care to redact any "sensitive material" in order to prevent challenges to the arrest, as were raised by Purkayastha and Chakraborty in this case.