Prabir Purkayastha, the creator of NewsClick, gets freed by the Supreme Court, which deems his imprisonment “illegal.”

Prabir Purkayastha, the creator of NewsClick, was ordered to be released by the Supreme Court on Wednesday. The court ruled that his detention by the Delhi police and his subsequent custody in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, were unlawful.

A bench consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta decided that Purkayastha’s arrest and the ensuing remand orders were invalid due to the fact that neither he nor his attorney had a copy of the remand application prior to the October 4, 2023, detention order being issued.

Purkayasatha’s release was mandated by the highest court, provided that he provided the bail bonds to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Since October 3, 2023, Purkayastha has been detained under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, after being apprehended by the Delhi police’s Special Cell.

The FIR claims that large sums of money were sent to the news outlet by China in order to “disrupt the sovereignty of India” and incite anti-Chinese sentiment. Purkayastha is accused of plotting to undermine the election process in the 2019 Lok Sabha elections alongside the People’s Alliance for Democracy and Secularism (PADS).

The Bench cited the decision made by the Supreme Court in Pankaj Bansal’s case, whereby the Enforcement Directorate was charged with arbitrary use of its authority granted by the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002.

“The appellant was not given a copy of the remand application. This invalidates the appellant’s arrest in the wake of the Pankaj Bansal case. Judge Mehta delivered the decision, saying, “Although we would have released him without surety, we release him with surety and bail bond since a chargesheet has been filed.”

A Bench of Justice AS Bopanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar had decided on October 3, 2023, while granting bail to the directors of the Gurugram-based real estate group M3M in a money-laundering case, that the investigating agency must provide the arrested person with a copy of the grounds of arrest “as a matter of course and without exception.”

It had stated, “This being the fundamental right guaranteed to the arrested person, the mode of conveying information of the grounds of arrest must necessarily be meaningful so as to serve the intended purpose,” citing Article 22(1) of the Constitution, which states that no person who is arrested shall be detained in custody without being informed, as soon as may be, of the grounds for such an arrest.

The inquiry agency was ordered by the highest court to conduct itself in a transparent, non-vindictive way and in accordance with the highest norms of fair play.