The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment delivered on 8 February 2024, set aside the arrest and remand of Prabir Purkayastha, founder and editor-in-chief of the news portal NewsClick, under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA). A Bench comprising Justice B.R. Gavai and Justice Sandeep Mehta held that the remand order was vitiated because the investigating agency had failed to furnish the grounds of arrest to the accused as mandated by Section 43D(2) of the UAPA, and directed his immediate release from custody.
Background
Prabir Purkayastha was arrested by the Delhi Police Special Cell in October 2023 under the UAPA, in connection with allegations that NewsClick had received foreign funding that was utilised to propagate pro-China content, thereby allegedly threatening India's sovereignty and integrity. The arrest followed raids conducted under the UAPA at the premises of NewsClick and its associated personnel.
Purkayastha challenged his arrest and continued detention before the Supreme Court, contending that the investigating agency had not complied with the procedural safeguards mandated by the UAPA for arrests under the Act. Section 43D(2) of the UAPA requires that the grounds of arrest be communicated to the arrested person as soon as may be, and this procedural requirement has been treated by courts as a mandatory precondition for the validity of the arrest and subsequent remand. The constitutional dimension of the challenge rested on Article 22(1), which guarantees every arrested person the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest.
Key Holdings
The Supreme Court delivered the following findings:
Grounds of arrest not furnished: The Court found that the investigating agency failed to provide the grounds of arrest to Purkayastha at the time of arrest or at any point before the remand order was obtained. This constituted a clear violation of Section 43D(2) of the UAPA.
Remand order rendered invalid: Since the remand under Section 167 CrPC was obtained without compliance with the mandatory procedural requirement of furnishing grounds of arrest, the remand order itself was held to be vitiated and without legal authority.
Section 43D(2) is mandatory, not directory: The Court emphasised that the requirement to furnish grounds of arrest under the UAPA is a mandatory procedural safeguard, not a mere formality. Non-compliance renders the arrest and consequent detention illegal, regardless of the seriousness of the offence alleged.
Immediate release directed: Purkayastha was directed to be released from custody forthwith, the Court holding that continued detention on the basis of a legally invalid remand was impermissible.
Constitutional protection reaffirmed: The Bench observed that the right to be informed of the grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) of the Constitution applies with full force even in cases involving special statutes like the UAPA, and that procedural safeguards in such laws represent a legislative recognition of this fundamental right.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment has substantial implications for criminal defence practice in UAPA and other special statute cases. Defence lawyers representing persons arrested under the UAPA, National Security Act, or similar legislation with specific procedural requirements for arrest should meticulously verify whether the grounds of arrest were furnished in writing, the time and manner of communication, and whether this compliance is reflected in the arrest memo and remand records.
For investigating agencies, the decision serves as a firm reminder that procedural compliance in UAPA arrests is not a secondary consideration. Failure to furnish grounds of arrest — even where the underlying allegations may be serious — will result in judicial invalidation of the arrest and remand. Agencies must incorporate this requirement into their standard operating procedures for UAPA arrests.
The judgment also strengthens the broader principle that stringent anti-terror and national security statutes do not operate in a procedural vacuum. The procedural safeguards built into these statutes represent the legislative balance between security concerns and individual liberty, and courts will enforce these safeguards strictly.