The Supreme Court of India invalidated the arrest of NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha, extending crucial procedural safeguards to the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). This decision marks a pivotal moment in ensuring constitutional protections under Articles 20, 21, and 22 are upheld even within the realm of anti-terror legislation.
The Supreme Court’s decision follows its October 3, 2023, ruling which mandated investigative agencies to share the grounds of arrest in writing to the accused, a principle initially applied in the context of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). The bench of Justices B.R. Gavai and Sandeep Mehta highlighted that any violation of this fundamental right must be addressed strictly, reinforcing the necessity of transparency and due process.
The UAPA grants the state extensive powers, including relaxed timelines for filing chargesheets and stringent conditions for bail, making procedural safeguards particularly vital. Historically, the Supreme Court has allowed limited procedural protections in UAPA cases due to the serious nature of the charges and national security considerations often cited by the prosecution. However, this latest decision underscores the importance of balancing security concerns with individual rights.
The case against Purkayastha, brought by the Delhi Police Special Cell under stringent anti-terror provisions, exemplified procedural lapses. Although the trial court acknowledged the chargesheet, charges were yet to be framed to commence the trial.
The Supreme Court’s 42-page order granting relief to Purkayastha detailed several procedural inadequacies, including the hurried attempt to produce him before a magistrate without his counsel present and discrepancies in the remand order.
One of the critical issues identified was the failure to provide Purkayastha with a copy of the First Information Report (FIR), despite a formal application being made on his behalf. The FIR, registered on August 17, 2023, was not made public nor uploaded by the investigating agency. Furthermore, the remand order exhibited signs of subsequent insertions, raising questions about its authenticity and the clarity of the grounds for arrest.
The Supreme Court noted that the grounds for arrest conveyed to Purkayastha’s advocate were vague and primarily comprised a narration of facts from the FIR, which did not specify any particular incident or event leading to the alleged offences. This lack of specificity undermined the intelligibility of the charges, casting doubt on the validity of the arrest and subsequent procedural steps.
This ruling aligns with the Supreme Court's broader efforts to ensure timely trials and protect the rights of the accused. For instance, in 2021, the Court granted bail under the UAPA due to inordinate delays in conducting the trial, signalling its commitment to upholding justice even in cases involving serious allegations.
By reinforcing the necessity for clear, intelligible grounds for arrest and adherence to due process, the Supreme Court has set a precedent that emphasizes the protection of individual rights against the backdrop of stringent anti-terror laws. This decision not only impacts ongoing cases but also sets a higher standard for future investigations and arrests under the UAPA, balancing the scales between state power and personal liberty.