‘What was the hot haste to produce him at 6am’: SC raps Delhi Police over NewsClick editor’s arrest case
The Supreme Court bench expressed amazement over the fact that Purkayastha’s remand order was delivered before his lawyer could be brought on board.
- May 1, 2024,
- Updated May 1, 2024 1:36 PM IST
The Supreme Court pulled up the Delhi Police Special Cell for hastily producing NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha before the magistrate, without informing his lawyer. Reprimanding the Delhi Police, the apex court asked them why he was produced at 6 am and not at 10 am.
"Why didn’t you inform his lawyer in advance? You arrested him the previous day in the evening. You had an entire day to inform him. What was the hot haste to produce him at 6 am?...You could’ve produced him at 10 am. Principles of natural justice required to produce him at 10 or 11 am and for his lawyer to be informed," said the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The bench expressed amazement over the fact that Purkayastha’s remand order was delivered before his lawyer could be brought on board.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Purkayastha, argued before the apex court that his client's arrest was illegal, and that Purkayastha was not provided with ‘grounds of arest’.
"He was arrested on the evening of October 3, 2023 but was produced before trial court the very next day, early morning at 6 AM, without his lawyer being present with him," Sibal said, adding that a remand lawyer was present there to represent him instead.
While he was produced before the court at 6am, and the remand order passed at 6am, the remand application was sent to the lawyer through WhatsApp only at 7am.
ASG SV Raju argued that Purkayastha’s legal team was aware that he was to be produced within 24 hours, and since the legal aid counsel was present, there was no need to inform his counsel. He said that the counsel was, nevertheless, still informed. The grounds for arrest were there in the remand application, and the same amounted to communication.
The ASG said that the special cell wanted the searches to be done at 6:30am, which was the reason to produce Purkayastha at 6am. "Before a remand order is passed, grounds must be communicated. The idea is, unless you inform the accused about the grounds, how can he resist the remand? Prabir Purkayastha was arrested after the judgement. If his arrest and first remand is held illegal, subsequent remand orders would lose substance by itself. You (Delhi police special cell) didn’t even file a proper chargesheet in 180 days, with proper sanctions," the court added.
The court reserved his orders on Purkayastha’s plea challenging his arrest and remand in an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (UAPA) case. The case revolves around alleged Chinese funding to fuel 'anti-national propaganda' in India through the NewsClick platform.
The Supreme Court pulled up the Delhi Police Special Cell for hastily producing NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha before the magistrate, without informing his lawyer. Reprimanding the Delhi Police, the apex court asked them why he was produced at 6 am and not at 10 am.
"Why didn’t you inform his lawyer in advance? You arrested him the previous day in the evening. You had an entire day to inform him. What was the hot haste to produce him at 6 am?...You could’ve produced him at 10 am. Principles of natural justice required to produce him at 10 or 11 am and for his lawyer to be informed," said the Supreme Court bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta.
The bench expressed amazement over the fact that Purkayastha’s remand order was delivered before his lawyer could be brought on board.
Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, appearing for Purkayastha, argued before the apex court that his client's arrest was illegal, and that Purkayastha was not provided with ‘grounds of arest’.
"He was arrested on the evening of October 3, 2023 but was produced before trial court the very next day, early morning at 6 AM, without his lawyer being present with him," Sibal said, adding that a remand lawyer was present there to represent him instead.
While he was produced before the court at 6am, and the remand order passed at 6am, the remand application was sent to the lawyer through WhatsApp only at 7am.
ASG SV Raju argued that Purkayastha’s legal team was aware that he was to be produced within 24 hours, and since the legal aid counsel was present, there was no need to inform his counsel. He said that the counsel was, nevertheless, still informed. The grounds for arrest were there in the remand application, and the same amounted to communication.
The ASG said that the special cell wanted the searches to be done at 6:30am, which was the reason to produce Purkayastha at 6am. "Before a remand order is passed, grounds must be communicated. The idea is, unless you inform the accused about the grounds, how can he resist the remand? Prabir Purkayastha was arrested after the judgement. If his arrest and first remand is held illegal, subsequent remand orders would lose substance by itself. You (Delhi police special cell) didn’t even file a proper chargesheet in 180 days, with proper sanctions," the court added.
The court reserved his orders on Purkayastha’s plea challenging his arrest and remand in an Unlawful Activities Prevention Act 1967 (UAPA) case. The case revolves around alleged Chinese funding to fuel 'anti-national propaganda' in India through the NewsClick platform.