Introduction:

In the case of Prabir Purkayastha & Amit Chakraborty v. State, The Supreme Court recently adjourned the pleas filed by Prabir Purkayastha, founder and editor-in-chief of NewsClick, and Amit Chakraborty, the organization’s human resources head, challenging their arrest. This followed their arrest by the Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) over purported Chinese funding for promoting anti-national propaganda.

Arguments of Both Sides  

Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Prabir Purkayastha, contested the legality of the arrest. Sibal highlighted multiple criminal charges under UAPA and Indian Penal Code sections against Purkayastha, asserting that even accepting all allegations, no offence under UAPA was substantiated. He emphasized the non-supply of grounds for arrest during the time of arrest, citing the Pankaj Bansal ruling concerning arrests under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave, appearing for Amit Chakraborty, echoed similar contentions, noting Chakraborty’s arrest despite not being mentioned in the FIR directly. Dave argued that Chakraborty’s minimal stake in the company owning NewsClick and lack of control over its content or administration made his arrest unjustified.

Court’s Observations and Ruling  

During the hearing, the Additional Solicitor-General SV Raju contended that the grounds of arrest were duly communicated to both arrestees, complying with Article 22 of the Constitution. Raju argued against applying the Pankaj Bansal ruling’s principles to UAPA cases, highlighting the Act’s distinct provisions.

The Court, while acknowledging the submissions, emphasized that the present bench’s unique composition required authorization from the Chief Justice for continuation. Justice Gavai noted that obtaining orders from the Chief Justice was necessary for the special combination to persist.