New Delhi:
The Delhi High Court on Friday said that providing written grounds for arrest to a person under arrest was not mandatory under the Unlawful Activity (Prevention) Act, but it was “advisable” that police provide the same in future after redacting of “sensitive material”.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, while hearing a petition by NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha against his arrest and subsequent police remand in a case filed under UAPA, said the anti-terror law only provided for the suspect to be ‘informed’ of the arrest within 24 hours. held for hours.
The judge also ruled that the recent decision of the Supreme Court directing the Enforcement Directorate to henceforth provide the grounds for arrest in writing to the suspect “without exception” cannot be made applicable to UAPA cases as the sensitivity of the information collected by the investigating authorities in the latter is of “greater significance and has direct implications for issues related to national security”.
“It is held that the grounds for arrest must be communicated to the arrestee within 24 hours of arrest, but furnishing of such grounds in writing is not mandatory by the UAPA,” the court said.
“In view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in (the case of) Pankaj Bansal, and also taking into account the stringent provisions of the UAPA, it would be advisable that henceforth the respondent furnishes in writing the grounds for his arrest, albeit after editing what, in the defendant’s opinion, would count as ‘sensitive material’,” the court said.
This approach, he said, would avoid any challenge to the arrest in a case like the present.
The court also observed that the apex court’s order on furnishing written grounds for detention, relied upon by the petitioner to seek relief, was passed in view of the statutory provisions of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) and there was “no such similar legal obligation” under UAPA.
“It is clear that the PMLA is a law for the maintenance of domestic law and order in relation to financial crimes and may or may not be related to threats to the stability, sovereignty and integrity of this country,” the court noted.
“Thus, the ratio laid down by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal while relying on (the case of) V Senthil Balaji, which was purely related to the provisions of PMLA, cannot be made applicable by any stretch of the imagination, mutatis mutandis (after necessary amendments have been made) in the cases arising under the UAPA,” the report said.
The court ultimately dismissed the petition filed by Mr Purkayastha and the portal’s human resources chief Amit Chakravarty, saying there were no “procedural defects” or violation of legal or constitutional provisions relating to the arrest.
Mr Purkayastha and Mr Chakravarty were arrested on October 3 by the Special Cell of Delhi Police in the case filed under the anti-terror law Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) for allegedly receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.
They then moved the High Court challenging the arrest and seven-day police custody and sought immediate release as an interim measure.
On October 10, the court sent them to pre-trial detention for ten days.
According to the FIR, a large amount of money for the news portal was allegedly sourced from China to “disrupt the sovereignty of India” and cause discontent with the country.
It also alleged that Mr Purkayastha conspired with a group – People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) – to sabotage the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha elections.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by DailyExpertNews staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)