NewsClick case: Delhi HC raises ‘grounds for arrest’ issue, seeks police reply

A single-judge bench of Justice Tushar Rao Gedela asked Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, who appeared for the police, “Apparently in the application for remand, you don’t disclose whether grounds of arrest were communicated or not. Today there is a judgment of the Supreme Court staring in the eye. If SC says it’s imperative for investigating authorities to communicate…”

The high court said this after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, submitted that recently in a “matter containing a similar provision with respect to PMLA (Prevention of Money Laundering Act), the apex court has said that grounds of arrest have to be communicated and given in writing”. The Supreme Court on Tuesday passed the order in a plea by Pankaj Bansal and Basant Bansal, directors of M3M real estate group, who had challenged an order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which declined to set aside their arrest by the Enforce-ment Directorate under PMLA.

The HC thereafter said it “appeared as if something was missing in the remand order”, observing that “apparently” the trial court had “not heard Purkayastha’s counsel”.

Mehta sought time to file a reply as well as seek instructions. He said he does not have a copy of the petition. “There is more than what meets the eye, let me file a reply,” he said.

After hearing the parties, the court, however, said that interim relief cannot be granted without hearing the other side and sought the response of the police on applications seeking the interim release of Purkayastha and Chakravarty till the pendency of their petition.

Listing the matter on October 9, the HC noted Mehta’s submission that the police’s reply to interim prayers would be filed within a day. It said the case diary will be produced Monday. After Chakravarty’s counsel said his client is physically disabled, the HC directed the investigating officer to ensure that his medical condition is not compromised.

During the hearing, Sibal said no grounds of arrest were provided to his client and claimed violation of Delhi High Court Rules which say that an accused is entitled to counsel; he added that the remand order was passed without hearing Purkayastha’s counsel. He argued that “on its own terms, the order is unsustainable”, to which Justice Gedela said that’s precisely why the high court will have to hear the police. The court, however, said, “The only difficulty is that allegations don’t seem to be of such a nature that can get you released immediately.”

On Wednesday, Purkayastha and Chakravarty were remanded to seven-day police custody. Both were arrested following allegations that the news portal was given money to spread pro-China propaganda.