NewsClick Editor-in-chief Moves Delhi High Court to Quash FIR

Summary:

• Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty, editor-in-chief and human resources head of NewsClick respectively, have approached the Delhi High Court to quash the FIR registered against them by the Delhi Police’s special cell.
• The FIR was filed under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, alleging that NewsClick received money for spreading pro-China propaganda.
• The matter was mentioned for urgent hearing by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, who argued that the arrest was made illegally and in violation of Supreme Court decisions.
• The court has agreed to hear the matter on Friday.
• On Thursday, a trial court directed the Delhi Police to provide Purkayastha and Chakravarty with a copy of the FIR, citing previous court orders.
• The court allowed the applications and directed the investigating officer to provide the accused with a certified copy of the FIR.
• The accused argued that they have the right to receive a copy of the FIR.
• The special public prosecutor opposed the applications, stating that the case is sensitive and the investigation is still at an initial stage.
• The prosecutor cited the accused’s alleged offenses and the grounds for arrest.

NewsClick editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakravarty have moved the Delhi High Court, seeking to quash the FIR registered by the Delhi Police’s special cell under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act. The FIR alleges that NewsClick received money for pro-China propaganda.

Senior advocate Kapil Sibal mentioned the matter for urgent hearing before a bench headed by Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma. Sibal argued that the arrest was made illegally and in violation of Supreme Court decisions. The bench agreed to hear the matter on Friday.

On Thursday, a trial court directed the Delhi Police to provide Purkayastha and Chakravarty with a copy of the FIR, citing previous court orders. The court allowed the applications and directed the investigating officer to provide a certified copy of the FIR to the accused. The accused argued that they have the right to receive a copy of the FIR.

The special public prosecutor opposed the applications, stating that the case is sensitive and the investigation is still at an initial stage. The prosecutor cited the accused’s alleged offenses and the grounds for arrest. The accused received ₹115 crore in the guise of foreign funding and engaged in discussions regarding a map of India without Kashmir and showing Arunachal Pradesh as a disputed area, according to the prosecutor.