On August 26, 2020, a criminal complaint was registered against NewsClick, an Indian online news portal owned by PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. The Directorate of Enforcement (ED), the economic intelligence agency of the Indian government, argued that NewsClick had “received foreign direct investment by overvaluing the share to avoid the cap of FDI [Foreign Direct Investment] requirement”. This violated the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA), 1999 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002.

On February 9, 2021, ED conducted raids at the offices of NewsClick. The police also raided the houses of NewsClick’s founder and editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha, and its head of human resources, Amit Chakravarty. ED alleged that the raids were conducted concerning a “money laundering case pertaining to foreign funding”. The Delhi High Court granted interim protection from arrest to Purkayastha. As of April 2025, the case is still pending in the court.

On August 5, 2023, the New York Times (NYT) published an article entitled, “A Global Web of Chinese Propaganda Leads to a U.S. Tech Mogul”. The article reported on Neville Roy Singham, an American millionaire, accusing him of working “closely with the Chinese government media machine” and “financing its propaganda worldwide” through a network of nonprofit groups and shell companies. The article stated that “Singham’s network financed a news site, NewsClick, that sprinkled its coverage with Chinese government talking points”. NYT claimed that one of NewsClick’s videos asserted that “China’s history continues to inspire the working classes”.

On August 17, 2023, following the NYT article, a new criminal complaint was registered against NewsClick under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). NewsClick was accused of carrying Chinese propaganda on its website.

On October 3, 2023, Delhi police conducted extensive raids at the homes of 46 people, including journalists, staffers and contributors who were associated with NewsClick, and arrested Purkayastha and Chakravarty. The police seized numerous documents and digital devices belonging to Purkayastha and his employees. The arrest memo did not contain the grounds of arrest.

On October 4, 2023, the Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi remanded Purkayastha and Chakravarty to seven days of police custody. Purkayastha challenged this remand order in the Delhi High Court. He sought an order declaring his arrest illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 21 (protection of life and personal liberty) and 22 (protection against arrest and detention) of the Constitution of India, and immediate release from police custody. On October 13, 2023, the Delhi High Court dismissed the application.

NewsClick issued a press statement on October 4, 2023, and said that the government had wrongly accused them of offences under UAPA and of carrying Chinese propaganda on their website. They submitted that the government’s actions were a direct attack on journalistic independence, where legitimate criticism was being mislabelled as sedition or “anti-national” propaganda. NewsClick stated that despite these grave allegations, the police did not provide them with a copy of the complaint or inform them of the exact charges against them and that the seizure of electronic devices from their office and the homes of employees was carried out without adherence to due process. They described this as “a blatant attempt” at preventing them from continuing their reporting on sensitive issues and that the sealing of their office was aimed at stifling independent journalism. Highlighting the 2021 case against them, NewsClick stated that they have been subjected to continuous scrutiny and harassment by multiple government agencies as their offices and the residences of their officials had been raided by the ED, the Economic Offences Wing of the Delhi Police, and the Income Tax Department. They submitted that over the years, all their digital devices, emails, communications and financial records had been repeatedly scrutinized by multiple government agencies but that, despite these extensive investigations, ED has not been able to file a complaint accusing them of money laundering, the Economic Offences Wing has failed to file a charge sheet under the IPC and the Income Tax Department has been unable to defend its actions in court. NewsClick argued that a “motivated and bogus” article published in the NYT was used as justification by the government to invoke the “draconian” UAPA against them and that this was an “attempt to shut down and stifle independent and fearless voices that portray the story of the real India – of peasants, of labourers, of farmers, and other oft-ignored sections of society”.

Purkayastha challenged the order of the Delhi High Court, filing a petition to the Supreme Court. He argued that his arrest violated his fundamental right to life and liberty guaranteed under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of the Indian Constitution. Article 20 prohibits ex post facto conviction, double jeopardy, and self-incrimination. Article 21 guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, ensuring no person is deprived of these except through a procedure established by law. Article 22 protects against arbitrary arrest and detention, including the rights to be informed of the arrest, legal representation, and safeguards for preventive detention.

Justice Sandeep Mehta of the Supreme Court delivered the judgment of the two-judge division bench. The main issue for consideration was whether Purkayastha’s arrest was illegal and in violation of his fundamental rights.

Purkayastha argued that the complaint had been “registered purely on conjectures and surmises without there being any substance in the allegations” and was neither publicly available nor provided to him before his arrest. [p. 6] He stated that he was confined in custody without being informed of the grounds of arrest, breaching Article 22(1) of the Indian Constitution and Section 50 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and relied on the case of Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, argueing that the successive remand orders cannot justify an illegal arrest. Purkayastha submitted that the Investigating Officer acted mala fide by securing a remand order without notifying his actual lawyer. He maintained that his arrest was unconstitutional.

The State noted that the judgment in Pankaj Bansal was uploaded after Purkayastha’s remand on October 4, 2023, making compliance impossible for the arresting officer. It argued that Articles 22(1) and 22(5) do not mandate providing written grounds of arrest and that Purkayastha’s right to legal representation was fulfilled, as his relative informed his lawyer. The State submitted that Purkayastha’s lawyer had objected to the remand via WhatsApp, and the Remand Judge had acknowledged it and that since the investigation was complete and the charge sheet had been filed, any irregularity in the arrest had been cured.

The Court held that any person arrested, whether under UAPA or any other law, has a “fundamental and a statutory right to be informed of the grounds of arrest in writing”. [p. 24] It emphasized that this right is “salutary and sacrosanct” and essential to ensure effective legal representation, oppose police custody remand, and seek bail. The Court stressed that merely stating formal “reasons for arrest”, as in the arrest memo, is insufficient, as it does not communicate the specific grounds for arrest and distinguished between “reasons for arrest,” which are general and applicable to any accused (such as to prevent the accused from tampering with evidence or committing further offence), and “grounds of arrest,” which must be personal and specific to the case.

The Court found that Purkayastha was not provided with a written copy of the grounds of arrest before his remand and was prevented from engaging an Advocate of his office, violating Article 22(1) of the Constitution. The Court described this process as “clandestine” and a “blatant attempt” by the police officials to “circumvent the due process of law”. [p. 31] It ruled that this procedural lapse rendered both the arrest and subsequent remand illegal. Furthermore, the Court rejected the State’s argument that compliance was not required at the time of arrest due to the prospective nature of the Pankaj Bansal judgment.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the High Court’s order, declared Purkayastha’s arrest and remand order unlawful, and directed his release on bail. However, the Court clarified that these observations do not reflect on the merits of the case.