Introduction:
In a significant judgment on July 23, 2025, the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, granted anticipatory bail to Prabir Purkayastha, the editor-in-chief and founder of the news portal NewsClick, as well as to Pranjal Pandey, Director of NewsClick, in connection with the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering case and the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) FIR alleging foreign funding violations. The petitions seeking bail were filed in 2021, and Purkayastha had already been enjoying interim protection from arrest since June 2021, which was repeatedly extended by the court during the pendency of the proceedings. The matter revolves around allegations that PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd., the company behind NewsClick, received foreign direct investment (FDI) by artificially overvaluing its shares, thereby circumventing statutory FDI restrictions. Following a series of raids and search operations conducted by the ED in February 2021 at the premises of NewsClick and residences of its key editors, the case attracted nationwide attention as it was intertwined with debates on press freedom, regulatory oversight of foreign funding, and alleged money laundering activities. While the detailed judgment is awaited, the court’s pronouncement granting anticipatory bail underscores the necessity of balancing investigative powers with the fundamental rights of the accused, particularly the right to liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Arguments of Both Sides:
The petitioners, Prabir Purkayastha and Pranjal Pandey, argued through their legal counsel that the allegations of foreign funding and money laundering were baseless and politically motivated. They contended that NewsClick, as a legitimate journalistic platform, had operated in full compliance with Indian laws, including the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) and FDI norms. The petitioners maintained that the alleged overvaluation of shares to avoid FDI caps was a misconceived allegation, as the valuation was carried out following standard practices and approved by relevant regulatory authorities. They argued that the case was being used as a tool of harassment and intimidation against independent media voices critical of government policies. It was emphasized that NewsClick’s operations and its financial transactions were transparent and duly audited, with no evidence to substantiate the claims of illegal money laundering or foreign funding violations.
Purkayastha and Pandey further submitted that the Enforcement Directorate’s raids and prolonged investigation had not yielded any incriminating evidence warranting arrest. They argued that custodial interrogation was unnecessary as they had fully cooperated with the investigation since 2021. It was highlighted that the interim protection granted by the High Court had been in force for over three years without any complaint of non-cooperation or tampering with evidence. The petitioners invoked the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (2014) and other cases emphasizing the need to avoid unnecessary arrests in economic offences unless absolutely warranted. They contended that their personal liberty could not be curtailed on the basis of vague and unsubstantiated allegations, especially in the absence of any material showing direct involvement in laundering proceeds of crime.
On the other hand, the Enforcement Directorate and Delhi Police’s EOW, representing the respondents, argued that the investigations had revealed suspicious financial transactions indicating that PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. had received substantial foreign remittances from entities with dubious backgrounds. The agencies alleged that these funds were routed through complex transactions aimed at concealing their origin and were potentially linked to anti-national activities. The ED claimed that the shareholding of NewsClick was deliberately overvalued to bypass the FDI caps applicable to news media entities, thus amounting to violations under FEMA and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The ED further contended that the seriousness of the allegations, coupled with the magnitude of the funds involved, warranted custodial interrogation of Purkayastha and Pandey to trace the money trail, identify all beneficiaries, and unearth the larger conspiracy. It was argued that anticipatory bail would hamper the investigation and could lead to tampering of witnesses or destruction of electronic evidence. The ED cited several precedents wherein courts have denied bail in cases involving economic offences due to their gravity and impact on the financial integrity of the nation. However, when pressed by the court, the agencies admitted that no direct evidence linking the petitioners to the alleged laundering of proceeds of crime had been unearthed thus far, though they insisted that the investigation was ongoing and required their custodial presence for effective questioning.
Court’s Judgment:
Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, after considering the submissions of both sides and reviewing the case records, granted anticipatory bail to Prabir Purkayastha and Pranjal Pandey. While the detailed judgment is awaited, the pronouncement made it clear that the court was not convinced about the necessity of custodial interrogation at this stage, especially given that the petitioners had been under interim protection since June 2021 and had cooperated with all summons and investigation procedures. The court noted that the ED and EOW had ample time to collect evidence during their raids and searches in February 2021, yet no substantive proof of active money laundering involving the petitioners had been presented.
The High Court underscored that anticipatory bail is not to be granted as a matter of routine but can be considered when there is no prima facie evidence of the accused obstructing justice, tampering with evidence, or evading investigation. In this case, the prolonged duration of interim protection, coupled with the absence of any allegation of non-cooperation by the petitioners, weighed in their favor. Justice Krishna emphasized that mere allegations of economic offences, however serious, do not automatically justify arrest unless there is clear evidence necessitating custodial interrogation.
The court also appeared to acknowledge the larger context in which the case was being pursued, noting that the allegations related to FDI violations and overvaluation of shares involve complex financial transactions that can largely be investigated through documentary and digital evidence, rather than custodial interrogation. Referring to established principles of law, the court observed that personal liberty is a cherished right under Article 21 and must be curtailed only when absolutely essential to the cause of justice.
The High Court’s decision to grant anticipatory bail does not amount to a clean chit for the petitioners but ensures that they will not be subjected to arrest while the investigation continues. The court may have also taken into account the chilling effect that arbitrary arrests of journalists and media owners could have on press freedom, a cornerstone of democracy. While the judgment is expected to lay down detailed reasons, the oral pronouncement reflects a balancing of the state’s interest in investigating financial crimes with the individual’s right to liberty and due process.
The court disposed of the bail pleas filed by Purkayastha in 2021, converting his interim protection into anticipatory bail with likely conditions, such as furnishing a bond, cooperating with the investigation, and refraining from influencing witnesses or tampering with evidence. The order granting similar relief to Pranjal Pandey in the EOW FIR signals the court’s consistent stance on safeguarding individual rights in the absence of compelling reasons for arrest.
The outcome of this case is expected to have broader implications for how investigative agencies approach cases involving media organizations and FDI-related financial transactions. It sends a clear message that while economic offences are taken seriously, the courts will not permit investigative overreach that undermines constitutional rights without sufficient cause.