News Excerpt:
The Supreme Court ordered the release of the founder of Newsclick, Prabir Purkayastha from custody by concluding the arrest under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), 1967, as invalid in the eyes of law.
About the news:
- Mr. Purkayastha’s case is based on the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which dictates that no person who is arrested can be detained in custody without being promptly informed of the grounds for their arrest.
- During the proceedings, senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing on behalf of Mr. Purkayastha, contended that the FIR was neither made available in the public domain nor was a copy supplied to him until his arrest.
Background of the case:
- On August 17, 2023, an FIR was lodged by the Delhi Police envisaging serious offences under Sections 13 (unlawful activities), 16 (terrorist act), 17 (raising funds for terrorist acts), 18 (conspiracy), and 22(C) (offences by companies, trusts) of the UAPA, and Sections 153A (promoting enmity between different groups) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC).
- Mr. Purkayastha was arrested on October 3, 2023 by invoking stringent UAPA provisions on the ground that he had allegedly received funds through Chinese firms to spread pro-China propaganda.
- However, the FIR was neither made available in the public domain nor was a copy supplied to the defence lawyer until his arrest and remand which violates fundamental right guaranteed under Article 22(1) of the Constitution.
- Further, on the morning of October 4, 2023, Mr. Purkayastha was produced before the remand judge at his residence without intimating his designated lawyer and was rather represented by a legal aid lawyer whom he had never engaged before.
Previous Judicial Intervention:
- Pankaj Bansal versus Union of India and Others (2023): The Supreme Court held that to give effect to constitutional safeguards, “it would be necessary, henceforth, that a copy of such written grounds of arrest is furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.”
|
Article 22(1) of the Constitution: It dictates that no person who is arrested can be detained in custody without being promptly informed of the grounds for their arrest. It further stipulates that an arrested person cannot be denied “the right to consult, and to be defended by, a legal practitioner of his choice.” Provisions involved: Section 19 of the PMLA: The Enforcement Directorate (ED) officer should not only have material with him giving him “reasons to believe” that a person is guilty of an offence under the law but such reasons should also be “recorded in writing before effecting arrest of any person.” Further, these written grounds of arrest must be communicated to the accused for a valid arrest to take place. Sections 43A and 43B of the UAPA mandate the furnishing of the grounds of arrest to an accused at the earliest. |
|
UAPA:
|
Decision of the Delhi High Court:
- The Delhi High Court agreed with the Delhi police that the ratio of Pankaj Bansal would not apply to the facts of Mr. Purkayastha’s case. It was delivered purely in relation to PMLA provisions and that it cannot “by any stretch of imagination, be made applicable, mutatis mutandis, to the cases arising under UAPA.”.
- The offences alleged in the NewsClick case directly impact “the stability, integrity, and sovereignty of the country” and bear significant national security implications.
Supreme Court:
- There is “no significant difference” in the language employed in Section 19(1) of the PMLA and Section 43B(1) of the UAPA because both the provisions find their source in the constitutional safeguard provided under Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India.” Hence, the requirement of informing the arrested person of the grounds of arrest in writing is salutary and sacrosanct.
- The Bench also differentiated between the meaning of the terms ‘reasons of arrest’ and ‘grounds of arrest’. While the former relates to general parameters based on which a person had to be arrested, the latter requires the police to list out specific facts necessitating the arrest of the individual concerned, so that he/she could effectively oppose the plea for remand or seek bail.
Conclusion:
The ruling emphasizes the need for law enforcement agencies to adhere to proper procedure and due process, especially in stringent UAPA cases where there is a reverse burden of proof on the accused. This makes obtaining bail extremely difficult in such cases.
