<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to take up on October 19 a plea by NewsClick founder and Editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha and its HR head, Amit Chakraborty against the Delhi High Court's order dismissing their plea challenging their arrest by Delhi police in a case lodged under anti-terror law the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).</p> <p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.</p> <p>The bench said they wanted time to go through the file.</p> <p>Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat, for the petitioners, said notice has to be issued in the matter.</p> <p>The court, however, said it would take up the matter on October 19.</p>.CBI FIR against NewsClick, editor-in-chief Purkayastha for FCRA 'violations'. <p>The Delhi High Court in its order on October 13, 2023 had rejected the petitions filed by accused duo-- Purkayastha and Chakraborty -- challenging their arrest and remand in the UAPA case.</p> <p>Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had rejected the petitions filed by Purkayastha and Chakraborty challenging the remand order.</p> <p>According to the prosecution, the accused duo were charged with receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.</p> <p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the investigation agency, had claimed the ongoing investigation involved “serious offences” as a huge sum of money, about Rs 75 crore, was received from a person who is staying in China and “the purpose is to ensure that integrity and stability of the country is compromised”.</p> <p>The HC had said the petitioners had raised no grievance at all "of an illegal remand order while filing an application seeking a copy of FIR when the remand order was passed on October 04, 2023".</p> <p>It had also held the Supreme Court's judgement in Pankaj Bansal --for supplying the grounds of arrest by the Enforcement Directorate at the time of arrest -- is not applicable to the facts and the law in the petition.</p> <p>"The plea challenging the arrest of the present petitioner on the grounds of non furnishing of grounds of arrest are, similarly, held to be untenable and is accordingly rejected," it had said.</p> <p>The FIR lodged on August 17, 2023 had named Purkayastha and activist Gautam Navalakha and Chinese resident <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/never-received-funds-from-any-government-or-political-party-neville-roy-singham-2730697">Neville Roy Singham</a>.</p>
<p>New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday decided to take up on October 19 a plea by NewsClick founder and Editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha and its HR head, Amit Chakraborty against the Delhi High Court's order dismissing their plea challenging their arrest by Delhi police in a case lodged under anti-terror law the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).</p> <p>A bench of Justices B R Gavai and Prashant Kumar Mishra posted the matter for hearing on Thursday.</p> <p>The bench said they wanted time to go through the file.</p> <p>Senior advocates Kapil Sibal and Devadatt Kamat, for the petitioners, said notice has to be issued in the matter.</p> <p>The court, however, said it would take up the matter on October 19.</p>.CBI FIR against NewsClick, editor-in-chief Purkayastha for FCRA 'violations'. <p>The Delhi High Court in its order on October 13, 2023 had rejected the petitions filed by accused duo-- Purkayastha and Chakraborty -- challenging their arrest and remand in the UAPA case.</p> <p>Justice Tushar Rao Gedela had rejected the petitions filed by Purkayastha and Chakraborty challenging the remand order.</p> <p>According to the prosecution, the accused duo were charged with receiving money to spread pro-China propaganda.</p> <p>Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the investigation agency, had claimed the ongoing investigation involved “serious offences” as a huge sum of money, about Rs 75 crore, was received from a person who is staying in China and “the purpose is to ensure that integrity and stability of the country is compromised”.</p> <p>The HC had said the petitioners had raised no grievance at all "of an illegal remand order while filing an application seeking a copy of FIR when the remand order was passed on October 04, 2023".</p> <p>It had also held the Supreme Court's judgement in Pankaj Bansal --for supplying the grounds of arrest by the Enforcement Directorate at the time of arrest -- is not applicable to the facts and the law in the petition.</p> <p>"The plea challenging the arrest of the present petitioner on the grounds of non furnishing of grounds of arrest are, similarly, held to be untenable and is accordingly rejected," it had said.</p> <p>The FIR lodged on August 17, 2023 had named Purkayastha and activist Gautam Navalakha and Chinese resident <a href="https://www.deccanherald.com/india/never-received-funds-from-any-government-or-political-party-neville-roy-singham-2730697">Neville Roy Singham</a>.</p>
