In an important ruling, the Supreme Court on Wednesday ordered the release of NewsClick Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha, holding that his arrest by the Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and the subsequent remand was illegal because Purkayastha was not furnished in writing the grounds of his arrest on October 3, 2023.

Ordering the release of Prabir Purkayastha, a bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta noted that the copy of the application for seeking the remand of Purkayastha was not provided either to him or his lawyer before the passing of the remand order on October 4, 2023 and the grounds of arrest too were not communicated to him (Purkayastha) in writing.

Pronouncing the judgment, Justice Sandeep Mehta said, “There is no hesitation in the mind of the Court to reach to a conclusion that the copy of the remand application in the purported exercise of communication of the grounds of arrest in writing was not provided to the accused appellant (Purkayastha) or his counsel before passing of the order of remand dated 4th October, 2023 which vitiates the arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant” and “As a result, the appellant is entitled to a direction for release from custody …”

Stating that any person arrested for the offences under the provisions of UAPA or for that matter any other offence(s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing at the earliest, Justice Mehra speaking for the bench said, “The Right to Life and Personal Liberty is the most sacrosanct fundamental right guaranteed under Articles 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India. Any attempt to encroach upon this fundamental right has been frowned upon by this Court in a catena of decisions.”

The top court further said that any attempt to violate the fundamental right, guaranteed by Articles, 20, 21 and 22 of the Constitution, would have to be “dealt with strictly.”

The top court has noted that the arrest was in a computerised format that does not contain any column regarding the ‘grounds of arrest’ of the Purkayastha.

Invalidating the arrest and the subsequent remand of Prabir Purkayastha, the court noted that the chargesheet in the case has been filed. The court said that the release of Purkayastha on bail would be subject to his furnishing a bail bond to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

“Though we would have been persuaded to direct the release of the appellant (Purkayastha) without requiring him to furnish bonds or security but since the charge sheet has been filed, we feel it appropriate to direct that the appellant shall be released from custody on furnishing bail and bonds to the satisfaction of the trial Court,” the court said.

The order on Purkayashta’s challenge to his arrest and subsequent remand was reserved on April 30, 2024, on the conclusion of the arguments.

Purkayastha is in custody since October 3, 2923, in a case of allegedly receiving Chinese funds to propagate anti-national propaganda.

Purkayastha had approached the top court challenging the legality of his arrest, contending that the grounds of arrest were not supplied to him in writing as mandated by the Supreme Court on its earlier judgment in the judgment of Pankaj Bansal case. On the other hand, Delhi police had contended that the grounds of arrest were contained in the remand application.

Purkayastha had approached the top court against October 13, 2023, order of the single judge of Delhi High Court dismissing his plea. Arrested on October 3, 2023 by Delhi police, Purkayastha, was accused of the offences under Section 13, 16, 17, 18, 22C of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 and Section 153A, 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

Purkayastha had challenged his arrest by Delhi police on the ground that he was not furnished with the grounds of his arrest. The top court has noted that the arrest was in a computerised format that does not contain any column regarding the ‘grounds of arrest’ of the Purkayastha.

After the pronouncement of the judgment, the Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, appearing for investigating agencies said that he needed one clarification, since the arrest has been declared void, it might not preclude us from exercising our correct powers to arrest. The court told him, we could not say anything on that. “Whatever you are permitted to do under the law, you are permitted,” the court said.