Table of Contents
THE CONTEXT: The Supreme Court of India’s order invalidating the arrest and remand in News Click founder is much more than a technical outcome based on the failure of the Delhi police to furnish the grounds for his arrest in writing. It is also an indictment of the covert way the police sought to obtain his custody. It seems that invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act against the web portal was not malign enough — the case looks entirely fictional. It establishes no overt act that can even be described as unlawful, much less a terrorist act.
ISSUES:
- Failure to Furnish Grounds of Arrest: The Supreme Court criticized the Delhi Police for not providing the grounds of arrest in writing the newsclick founder, a fundamental requirement under the principles of natural justice. This failure was a significant factor in the Court’s decision to invalidate the arrest and remand orders.
- Clandestine and Hasty Procedures: The Court condemned the “hot haste” and the covert manner in which the Delhi Police produced Purkayastha before the magistrate at 6 AM without informing his lawyer. This was seen as an attempt to circumvent due process and deny Purkayastha the opportunity to be represented by his chosen legal counsel.
- Violation of Legal and Constitutional Rights: The Court highlighted that the Delhi Police’s actions violated legal and constitutional rights, particularly the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest and legal representation. The Court emphasized that these rights are essential for a fair legal process.
- Application of Pankaj Bansal Judgment: The judgment extended the principle from the Pankaj Bansal case, which mandates that those arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA) must be given the grounds of their arrest in writing, to cases under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This sets a precedent for requiring written grounds of arrest in all cases, including those under UAPA.
- Questionable Allegations and Charges: The police’s allegations against Purkayastha, including claims of Chinese funding and attempts to undermine Indian democracy, were described as far-fetched and lacking substantive evidence. The Court’s scrutiny of these allegations suggests an adverse inference about the bona fides of the case, indicating that the charges may be politically motivated rather than based on solid evidence.
THE WAY FORWARD:
- Strict Adherence to Procedural Requirements: Ensure that law enforcement agencies strictly adhere to all procedural requirements, such as providing the grounds of arrest in writing. Provide regular training and workshops for police officers on the importance of procedural compliance. Establish a monitoring mechanism to oversee the adherence to procedural norms during arrests and remands.
- Judicial Oversight and Accountability: Enhance judicial oversight to prevent the misuse of laws like the UAPA and ensure accountability for any procedural lapses. Set up special judicial committees to review cases of arrests under stringent laws like the UAPA. Instigate penalties for law enforcement officers who violate procedural norms.
- Legal Representation and Rights Awareness: Guarantee that arrested individuals have immediate access to legal representation and are fully informed of their rights. Mandating the presence of a legal aid representative during the initial stages of arrest and remand and conducting awareness campaigns to educate the public about their legal rights during arrests.
- Transparent and Fair Remand Procedures: To ensure transparency and fairness and prevent clandestine practices, reform remand procedures to ensure transparency and fairness. Introduce digital recording of remand proceedings to ensure transparency. Remand hearings must be conducted during regular court hours unless in exceptional circumstances.
- Legislative Reforms: Amend existing laws to incorporate safeguards that prevent misuse and protect fundamental rights. Revising the UAPA and similar regulations to include explicit provisions for procedural safeguards and enacting new legislation that immediately provides arrest grounds in writing for all arrests, with no exceptions.
THE CONCLUSION:
The police recently filed a charge sheet in this case, which makes the outlandish claim that the Chinese government funded Mr. Purkayastha and that he and American millionaire Neville Roy Singham were involved in an alleged conspiracy to replace Indian democracy with a party-state system as in China. It speaks of their support to incite riots and protests in India and even funding terrorists. Given the grave, even if far-fetched, nature of the allegations against him, regular bail would have been difficult to come by. Therefore, it is salutary that the Court has treated the level of adherence to procedure — the need to furnish the grounds of arrest in this case — as holy.
UPSC PAST YEAR QUESTIONS:
Q.1 The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) jurisdiction regarding lodging an FIR and conducting a probe within a particular State is being questioned by various States. However, the power of the States to withhold consent to the CBI is not absolute. Explain concerning the federal character of India. 2021
Q.2 Money laundering seriously threatens a country’s economic sovereignty. What is its significance for India, and what steps must be taken to control this menace? 2013
MAINS PRACTICE QUESTION:
Q.1 ‘’Industrial corridors are the engines of urban economic growth in states’’. In light of this statements, examine the potential benefits and challenges of development corridors in India with suitable examples.
SOURCE:
Spread the Word