The Supreme Court of India has mandated the immediate bail release of Prabir Purkayasth, a distinguished journalist and founder of NewsClick. Purkayasth was implicated in a case which accused his company of receiving illicit funds from China.
Arshdeep Khurana, Purkayasth’s legal representative, shared insights regarding the Supreme Court order. He said, “The Supreme Court has held the arrest and the remand proceedings to be illegal and has directed the release of Purkayasth. We have been directed to furnish the bail bond before the trial court. This is a major and big relief because we have been maintaining from the beginning that the entire proceedings against him were illegal and the manner of arrest was illegal, which has now been upheld by the Supreme Court.”
Purkayasth was incarcerared following a report published by The New York Times. The report implicated NewsClick as one of several media organizations that received funding from American millionaire Neville Roy Singham, allegedly to distribute pro-China propagandas. Subsequent to the report, Purkayasth was arrested on October 3, 2023, under multiple infractions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The arrest sparked significant protests nationwide, with press organizations such as the Press Club of India and the Editors’ Guild of India vehemently censuring the police action. In court filings, Purkayasth contended that procedural lapses occurred during his arrest, calling into question its legality.
The top court, granting bail to the detained journalist, ruled: “The purpose of informing the arrested person of the grounds for arrest is salutary and sacrosanct, as this information would be the only effective means for the person to consult his advocate, oppose the police custody remand, and seek bail.” The justices especially underscored the importance of the Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India, which reinforces the fundamental rights of an arrestee to be promptly apprised of the reasons for detention before being taken into custody.
Original details of this case can be found in the article on JURIST.