NewsClick founder-editor, HR head sent to 10-day judicial custody in UAPA case

Among allegations detailed by the Special Cell in its FIR against Purkayastha are attempts to show Kashmir and Arunachal Pradesh as “not parts of India”; discrediting the Indian government’s fight against Covid; funding the farmers’ agitation; and “putting up a spirited defence of legal cases” against Chinese telecom companies such as Xiaomi and Vivo. Apart from Purkayastha, the FIR is also against rights activist Gautam Navlakha, under house arrest in the Elgaar Parishad case, and US-based businessman Neville Roy Singham.

After police said Purkayastha and Chakraborty’s custody was not needed, Judge Hardeep Kaur sent them to judicial custody.

Objecting to the judicial custody, advocate Arshdeep Khurana, representing NewsClick, said the offences in the FIR were not made out against the accused. He said: “What terrorist act have I committed? How can an act of unbiased journalism be considered terrorism?”.

On reporting of the government’s Covid policy, he said, “The country is not the government.”

Referring to the allegations in the new FIR, Khurana argued that these matters had already been investigated in a previous FIR registered by the Economic Offences Wing (EoW) against NewsClick. He said the RBI had given the accused a clean chit in the case. Khurana further said he had protection from the High Court in this case, and police had filed the latest FIR solely to circumvent this protection.

Responding to allegations on NewsClick’s association with Navlakha, Khurana said mere association with someone who is facing UAPA charges cannot be considered an offence. “I’ve not funded a penny to the farmers’ protest. Neither has a penny come from China. Show me 1 rupee which has come from China to NewsClick,” said Khurana.

Arguing on behalf of Chakraborty, his counsel said: “I have not been involved in any news publication. I’m not a journalist or a writer.” He further said, “Am I arrested simply to pressure me into saying something against some accused?”

Public Prosecutor Atul Kumar Srivastava argued that the accused had tried to mislead the court by citing judgments without complete facts. “The purpose of the FIRs is totally different,” said Srivastava, justifying the filing of the new FIR.

The PP told the court that they were at the stage of collecting evidence and that grave suspicion was enough to send the accused to custody.