TAG: GS 2: POLITY
THE CONTEXT: In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of India has declared the arrest and remand of Prabir Purkayastha, the founder of the news portal NewsClick, as invalid under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA).
EXPLANATION:
- The ruling mandates his immediate release from custody.
- The judgment, delivered by a bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, underscores significant procedural lapses and the violation of legal rights in the process of his arrest.
Background of the Case
- Prabir Purkayastha, a 74-year-old journalist, had been detained for over six months on allegations of using Chinese funding to promote “anti-national propaganda” through NewsClick.
- The Delhi Police accused him and others, including activist Gautam Navlakha and U.S.-based businessman Neville Roy Singham, of activities undermining national security.
Procedural Violations Leading to Invalid Arrest
- The Supreme Court found that neither Purkayastha nor his designated counsel were provided the grounds of his arrest in writing.
- This is a critical requirement under the law, as it enables the accused to seek and argue for bail.
- The court noted that during the remand hearing on October 4, 2023, Purkayastha was severely disadvantaged due to the absence of written reasons for his arrest.
- A Magistrate court had remanded Purkayastha into police custody in the early hours of October 4, 2023.
- This decision was made before Purkayastha or his lawyer received a written copy of the arrest reasons.
- Consequently, Purkayastha was unable to mount an effective defense during the remand hearing.
- The police only communicated the details of the arrest and remand to Purkayastha’s lawyer via WhatsApp after the order for his custody was passed.
Supreme Court’s Judgment
- The court unequivocally stated that the failure to provide written grounds of arrest to Purkayastha and his counsel before the remand order vitiated his arrest and subsequent remand.
- Justice Mehta, delivering the judgment, emphasized that the absence of written communication of the arrest grounds made the process legally invalid.
- The Supreme Court applied the ratio of its judgment in the Pankaj Bansal case, which mandates that the police provide a written copy of the grounds of arrest.
- Although the Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju argued that this precedent was specific to money laundering cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the court upheld that similar principles apply under the UAPA.
- The judgment quashed Purkayastha’s arrest and remand and set aside the Delhi High Court’s decision upholding his incarceration.
- The Supreme Court directed that Purkayastha be released from custody upon furnishing bail bonds to the trial court, given that a chargesheet had already been filed in the case.
Public and Legal Implications
- The case has drawn significant attention, with multiple journalists’ collectives writing to the Chief Justice of India to highlight the perceived malice behind the raids and arrests.
- They argued that journalism should not be prosecuted as terrorism, and the invocation of the UAPA was particularly alarming.
- This ruling by the Supreme Court reaffirms the importance of due process and the legal rights of individuals, particularly in cases involving severe charges under stringent laws like the UAPA.
- The judgment reinforces that procedural safeguards cannot be bypassed, even in the pursuit of national security.
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITIES (PREVENTION) ACT, 1967:
- It was passed in 1967 and aimed at effective prevention of unlawful activities associations in India.
- Unlawful activity refers to any action taken by an individual or association intended to disrupt the territorial integrity and sovereignty of India.
Key provisions of the UAPA, 1967:
- It empowers the central government to declare an association as unlawful if it believes that the association is involved in unlawful activities that threaten the sovereignty, unity, and integrity of India.
- It leaves very little room for judicial reasoning, and makes the grant of bail virtually impossible under UAPA. It has death penalty and life imprisonment as highest punishments.
- Under UAPA, both Indian and foreign nationals can be charged. It will be applicable to the offenders in the same manner, even if crime is committed on a foreign land, outside India.
- Under the UAPA, the investigating agency can file a charge sheet in maximum 180 days after the arrests and the duration can be extended further after intimating the court.
- The 2004 amendment added “terrorist act” to the list of offences to ban organizations for terrorist activities. Till 2004, “unlawful” activities referred to actions related to secession and cession of territory.
Features of 2019 Amendment:
- Under the Act, the central government may designate an organisation as a terrorist organisation if it:
- commits or participates in acts of terrorism,
- prepares for terrorism,
- promotes terrorism, or
- is otherwise involved in terrorism.
- It additionally empowers the government to designate individuals as terrorists on the same grounds.
- Under the Act, investigation of cases may be conducted by officers of the rank of Deputy Superintendent or Assistant Commissioner of Police or above. It additionally empowers the officers of the NIA, of the rank of Inspector or above, to investigate cases.
- The Act defines terrorist acts to include acts committed within the scope of any of the treaties listed in a schedule to the Act.
- The Schedule lists nine treaties, including the Convention for the Suppression of Terrorist Bombings (1997), and the Convention against Taking of Hostages (1979). The Bill adds another treaty to the list. This is the International Convention for Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism (2005).
Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India:
- In Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India Case 2023, the Supreme Court has held that the Directorate of Enforcement (ED) must furnish the reasons of arrest to the accused.
- The judgement came on a plea by Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal, Directors of M3M real estate group.
- They challenged an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which declined to set aside their arrest by the ED under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
- The Supreme Court ruled on 3rd October 2023 that it is necessary a copy of the grounds of arrest to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception.
- The arrest was held illegal by the bench, as arrest does not fulfil the mandate of Article 22 (1) of Constitution and Section 19 (1) of the PMLA.
- It underlined that the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not expected to be vindictive in its conduct.
