A Delhi court has ordered Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborty to be placed in judicial custody for a duration of 10 days.

In a recent development, a Delhi Court has ordered the detention of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of NewsClick, and the company’s Human Resources (HR) head, Amit Chakraborty, for a period of ten days under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The Delhi Police had registered a case against them.

This decision was made by Additional Sessions Judge Hardeep Kaur at the Patiala House Court after the Delhi Police conveyed that they no longer required the custody of the two accused and recommended sending them to judicial custody.

It’s noteworthy that this ruling was issued despite strong opposition from the legal representatives of the accused, who contended that the allegations in the First Information Report (FIR) did not constitute an offense under the UAPA.

They argued that the accusations did not involve the use of explosives, criminal force, harm to public functionaries, or actions like detention, kidnapping, or abduction. Consequently, they questioned how being engaged in journalism and reporting could lead to such charges. They also highlighted that Sections 16, 17, and 18 of the UAPA require a “terrorist act,” which, according to them, was not substantiated by the allegations in the FIR.

Furthermore, the defense emphasized that journalists should not be penalized for criticizing the government in power. However, the Additional Public Prosecutor (APP), Atul Srivastava, countered this argument, claiming that the accused were not merely criticizing the government but allegedly propagating the propaganda of a country antagonistic to India.

The arrests of Purkayastha and Chakraborty followed a series of raids triggered by allegations made in a New York Times article, suggesting that NewsClick was receiving payments to promote Chinese propaganda. Initially, the two individuals were remanded to seven days of police custody on October 4, and they sought a copy of the FIR, which was granted by a Delhi court on October 5.

According to the FIR, the accused had allegedly received substantial foreign funds through illegal means, with the intention of disrupting India’s sovereignty, unity, and security. It was suggested that these funds, amounting to crores of rupees, were illicitly funneled into India by both Indian and foreign entities over a five-year period. These funds were allegedly provided by Singham, an active member of the Communist Party of China’s Propaganda department, using a complex network of entities.

During the recent hearing, Purkayastha’s counsel argued that the arrest was unlawful because the grounds for arrest were not communicated to the accused. Furthermore, they opposed the decision to place the accused in judicial custody, highlighting the existence of multiple ongoing investigations by the Delhi Police, the Enforcement Directorate (ED), and the Income Tax department.

The defense also contended that previous protection granted by the Delhi High Court in June/July 2021 was still in effect. They argued that the arrest had been conducted to circumvent this protection and emphasized that the allegations in the FIR did not amount to an offense, let alone a violation of the UAPA.

Additionally, they stressed that UAPA should not be used to restrict the right to free speech under Article 19. The defense questioned whether critical reporting on government policies, such as COVID-19 and farmers’ protests, could be considered terrorism. Regarding allegations of Purkayastha’s association with Gautam Navlakha, the defense maintained that knowing someone since 1991 should not constitute an offense under the UAPA.

Furthermore, they denied receiving any funds from China, even though they had reported on the farmers’ protests. In conclusion, the defense argued that sending these individuals to judicial custody would be a grave miscarriage of justice, particularly given their standing as reputable journalists, with Purkayastha’s recognition as a scientist on a global scale. Chakraborty’s counsel also opposed the decision to place him in judicial custody.