Supreme Court seeks Delhi Police's response in NewsClick arrests case following plea by Purkayastha and Chakraborty.

Last Updated: 19-10-2023 02:59:19pm
Supreme Court seeks Delhi Police's response in NewsClick arrests case following plea by Purkayastha and Chakraborty.

On Thursday, the Supreme Court of India took action in response to the petitions filed by Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, and Amit Chakraborty, the human resources head of the news website. \

The petitions were filed against their police remand in a case registered under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). Justices BR Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra issued a notice to the Delhi Police and scheduled the case for further consideration on October 30, 2023.

The Court ordered, "Issue notice. Returnable on October 30, 2023." 

During the hearing, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, requested an earlier date for the hearing, citing his client's age of 72.

However, the Court declined the request, stating that the next day was the only working day before the Dussehra vacation and listed the case for October 30, the following Monday.

Purkayastha and Chakraborty approached the Supreme Court to challenge the decision of the Delhi High Court, which had upheld the trial court's order to remand them to police custody. The arrests were made after a series of raids were conducted following allegations made in a New York Times article that NewsClick was receiving payment to promote Chinese propaganda.

The accused were arrested on October 3 after several hours of questioning and were remanded to seven days of police custody on October 4.

The First Information Report (FIR) alleged that the accused had illegally received large sums of money in foreign funds and had used the funds with the intention of disrupting the sovereignty, unity, and security of India.

The funds were allegedly fraudulently infused by Neville Roy Singham, who was said to be an active member of the Communist Party of China's propaganda department, through a complex network of entities.

The accused then moved the High Court to challenge their arrest, remand, and the FIR lodged against them under the UAPA.

As a consequence, this resulted in the expeditious appeals being presented before the highest court of jurisdiction.

TAGS: Delhi High Court Supreme Court of India Prabir Purkayastha Newsclick Amit Chakraborty

Latest Posts

Calcutta HC extends police shield for slain Congress worker's family amid threats from accused in poll violence.

Calcutta HC extends police shi...

 Madras HC: S.194 CrPC Orders Administrative, Unquestionable Unless Clearly Illegal.

Madras HC: S.194 CrPC Orders ...

 Delhi HC: No summons for non-compliance with Section 31 DV Act maintenance order.

Delhi HC: No summons for non-...

 Bombay HC nullified reassessment on leasehold rights, alleging income escapement.

Bombay HC nullified reassessm...

 2023 Supreme Court Digest: Indian Penal Code.

2023 Supreme Court Digest: In...

 Bail not granted solely on innocence claim; serious charges require stronger reasons: Supreme Court.

Bail not granted solely on in...

 Rajasthan HC queries police on contempt for breaching Supreme Court rules on commercial arrests

Rajasthan HC queries police o...

J&K High Court: Denying benefits to similar employees violates Articles 14 & 16, equality and non-discrimination.

J&K High Court: Denying benefi...