SC to hear pleas against arrest of Newsclick founder and HR head on October 19

The Supreme Court has scheduled a hearing for October 19 on the pleas filed by Newsclick founder and Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha and the website's human resources head, Amit Chakraborty.

The two individuals are challenging their arrest and detention under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), which is related to alleged Chinese funding to promote anti-national propaganda.

A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai and PK Mishra adjourned the matter to the following day. Justice Gavai mentioned that his fellow judge, Justice Mishra, also wishes to read the case files.


Senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, requested the bench to at least issue notice to the Delhi police. In response, the bench said it will hear the matter on the next day.

Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakraborty have filed petitions with the Supreme Court to challenge the Delhi High Court's decision to uphold the trial court's order that placed them in police custody. Subsequently, they were remanded to judicial custody.

Their arrest occurred on October 3, following an investigation by the Special Cell of the Delhi Police that involved the search of 30 locations related to the online news portal and its journalists.

The arrest was made under the UAPA based on allegations of receiving funds for promoting pro-China propaganda.

The FIR stated that a substantial amount of money had allegedly come from China to Newsclick to "disrupt the sovereignty of India" and foster disaffection against the country.

The investigative agency also claimed that Prabir Purkayastha had conspired with a group called the People's Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS) to undermine the electoral process during the 2019 Lok Sabha polls.

The Delhi High Court had previously rejected their pleas, stating that it believed "serious offences affecting the stability, integrity, sovereignty, and national security have been alleged against the petitioner."

As a result, the court was not inclined to pass any favourable orders in their favour.