New Delhi. The Supreme Court is the last threshold of justice in India. When people get tired and defeated from everywhere, they turn to the apex court with the hope that they will definitely get justice from here. The Supreme Court has given dozens of such decisions since independence, which are important for the interests and rights of the common people of the country and its citizens. The highest judicial institution of the country has recently given a decision which has far-reaching implications. In the case of NewsClick founder-cum-editor Prabir Purkayastha, a bench of two judges has made it clear that the investigating agency or the police will have to tell the person in writing on what basis he has been arrested, so that he can take action as per his wish. Can hire a lawyer and find solutions for legal relief.
Prabir Purkayastha was arrested in October last year under strict sections of UAPA as well as other sections of IPC. Prabir Purkayastha was arrested by the Special Cell of Delhi Police on 3 October 2023. On October 4, 2023, at 6 am, he was produced in the Sessions Court, from where he was sent on remand. Amidst all these processes, his lawyer was not informed about this. Prabir Purkayastha’s lawyer was informed in this regard on 5 October 2005, whereas the court had already sent him on remand. The Supreme Court reprimanded the Special Cell of Delhi Police regarding this and ordered the release of Prabir Purkayastha.
Supreme Court orders release of Newsclick editor, he was arrested under UAPA, questions on police haste
Important decision of the bench of two judges
While ordering the release of Prabir Purkayastha on bail, the bench of Justice BR Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta said something important in its decision. The bench said, ‘The entire process was done in a very confidential manner. This was nothing but an attempt to blatantly circumvent the due legal process. It is not at all appropriate to keep the accused in police custody without disclosing the grounds for arrest and depriving him of legal opportunities. The court clearly said that it is mandatory for the accused person to explain the grounds of arrest in writing. However, ASG SV Raju, who appeared in the court on behalf of the Special Cell of Delhi Police, said that Prabir Purkayastha was verbally informed about the basis for the arrest. The court refused to accept this.
From PMLA to UAPA
The Supreme Court had clearly said in the Pankaj Bansal case that it is mandatory for the accused arrested under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act to explain the grounds of arrest in writing. While giving the verdict in Prabir Purkayastha case, the apex court has now extended this order to the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). ASG SV Raju strongly opposed this in the court. He said that the decision given in Pankaj Bansal case was limited to PMLA only, it cannot be included in the UAPA case. Justice Sandeep Mehta, who wrote the judgment, said that there is no significant or major difference between Section 19(1) of PMLA and Section 43B(1) of UAPA. Let us tell you that these sections of both the laws tell about the power and procedure of arrest. The Supreme Court made it clear that the right to life and personal liberty is the most sacred and highest of the fundamental rights.
Tags: Supreme Court, UAPA
FIRST PUBLISHED: May 17, 2024, 08:34 IST