Introduction
Prabir Purkayastha, the creator of NewsClick, was detained by the Delhi Police Special Cell last year on suspicion of trying to "disrupt the sovereignty of India" through his ostensibly China-funded news service.
Purkayastha was recently ordered to be released from detention by the Supreme Court, which ruled that the Delhi Police's arrest and remand of him under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAPA) were "invalid in the eyes of law."
The Supreme Court upheld that detentions are subject to the same duty to provide written notice of the causes. It stressed that the written grounds for an arrest or detention sent by the police or investigative agency are "sacrosanct and cannot be violated under any circumstances.”
Why was Purkayastha’s Arrest Invalidated by the Supreme Court?
Grounds of Arrest were Not Provided :
The appellant is entitled to be released from custody following the ruling in the Pankaj Bansal case (2023), wherein the Supreme Court held that the accused must receive written grounds of arrest. The court stated that the absence of these grounds renders the arrest void.
The court also stated that the "right to be informed about the grounds of arrest flows from Article 22(1) of the Constitution of India and any infringement of this fundamental right would vitiate the process of arrest and remand."
Copy of Reasons for Arrest- a Fundamental Right :
The decision stated, "There is no doubt in the mind of the Court that any person arrested for an allegation of commission of offences under the provisions of the UAPA or for that matter any other offence (s) has a fundamental and a statutory right to be informed about the grounds of arrest in writing, and a copy of such written grounds of arrest have to be furnished to the arrested person as a matter of course and without exception at the earliest.”
Procedure Adopted is Clandestine :
The bench stated the case's circumstances and pointed out that the appellant was not given a copy of the FIR until after the remand order was issued.
According to the judgment, "it appears that the entire exercise was carried out covertly and was nothing more than a flagrant attempt to evade the legal system; to keep the accused in police custody without disclosing the reason for his arrest; to deny the accused the chance to retain the counsel of his choosing to contest the request for remand in police custody, request bail, and also to mislead the Court."
FIR Not an Encyclopaedia:
"The law is well settled that the FIR is not an encyclopedia and is registered just to set the process of criminal justice in motion," the ruling further notes. The Investigating Officer is authorized to look into the situation and gather any pertinent information that would serve as the foundation for presenting a charge sheet in the relevant court."
"The accused must be notified in writing of the grounds for his arrest and the specifics of the arrest in order to give him the chance to defend himself against prison confinement and request bail.
Therefore, the "reasons for arrest," which are broad, cannot be equated with the "grounds of arrest," which would inevitably be particular to the accused.
What is Due Process of Law?
Due process of law is a fundamental principle that ensures fair treatment through the judicial system, protecting individuals from arbitrary denial of life, liberty, or property. Originating from the Magna Carta of 1215, this concept is enshrined in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. The Fifth Amendment states, "No person shall be... deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," while the Fourteenth Amendment extends this guarantee to state actions.
The due process encompasses two main types:-
Due process serves as a crucial check on governmental power, ensuring laws and enforcement are consistent with principles of justice and liberty. It upholds individual rights against arbitrary actions, maintaining the rule of law and promoting trust in the legal system. This principle is vital in safeguarding human dignity and ensuring equitable treatment under the law.
How Does the UAPA 1967 Raise Concerns Regarding the Due Process of Law?
The maximum amount of time in judicial custody prior to the filing of a chargesheet may be extended from the customary 90 days to 180 days, and a remand order may be issued for 30 days as opposed to the customary 15.
The SC described preventive detention rules in Pramod Singla (2023) as a colonial relic with significant misuse potential. It said that all procedural requirements had to be strictly adhered to.
If the court determines that there are reasonable grounds to think the allegations are accurate on their face, it cannot issue bail to a suspect under Section 43D(5) of the Act.
The burden of proof is with the accused, but they need not ask the judge to consider the facts before them. Because of this, human rights advocates believe the clause is too restrictive, making it nearly hard for anybody to get bail until the trial is over.
After revisions in 2004 and 2013, the Act's current form addresses the proclamation of associations as illegal, the punishment of terrorist acts and activities, acts endangering the security of the nation, including its economic security (which includes energy, food, livelihood, and ecological security), and measures to stop the use of funds for terrorist activities, including money laundering.
Organizations were formerly prohibited for two years, however as of 2013, that time had been increased to five years.
The UAPA was extended to cover actions that would have been considered terrorist under previous legislation following the repeal of the Prevention of Terrorism Act (POTA), 2002.
According to the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB), 76% of prisoners were on trial in 2022 and over 12,000 persons were incarcerated in 2021 as a result of these legislation.
Only 18% of UAPA prosecutions result in a conviction, while 89% of UAPA cases are still pending in court.
How to Balance State Security within the Framework of Due Process of Law?
Enact legislation that precisely outlines the guidelines and processes for government measures taken in the interest of security. To guarantee responsibility and avoid abuse, these laws ought to be exact.
Establish a legislative committee to supervise and suggest modifications to security laws.
Bolster judicial oversight procedures to examine and verify arbitrary state authority activities. The authority to investigate the validity of detentions and other security measures should be granted to courts. Create a court review body to evaluate detention cases according to UAPA legislation.
Create impartial organizations to keep an eye on how security rules are being applied and look into any violations. These organizations ought to be able to hold governmental actors responsible.
In order to better oversee security activities, give independent organizations like the NHRC and the National Commission for Minorities more authority.
Educate law enforcement and security professionals about the value of upholding individual liberty while preserving security, as well as human rights norms.
Create thorough law enforcement training programs in association with the National Police Academy.
Talk about security policy and how it affects the rights of the public and civil society. This can aid in the creation of more broadly favoured and balanced policies.
Organize forums and public consultations on security policy using MyGov and other similar platforms.
Work together to promote press freedom and exchange best practices with international organizations like UNESCO and worldwide press freedom groups. The goal of the UN Plan of Action on the Safety of Journalists is to give media professionals and journalists a free and secure work environment.
Conclusion
As India progresses, it must continually strive to ensure that laws, especially stringent ones like the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), do not overshadow the fundamental rights of individuals. Upholding this balance is crucial for maintaining the integrity of a democratic society. While state security is paramount, it should not come at the cost of personal freedoms and civil liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.
Ensuring this equilibrium requires vigilant judicial oversight and adherence to due process of law. The Supreme Court's recent emphasis on due process in the NewsClick case underscores the need for transparency and fairness in legal proceedings, especially under laws with far-reaching consequences like the UAPA. This vigilance helps prevent misuse of power and protects citizens from arbitrary actions.
Moving forward, India's legal and constitutional ethos must embody a harmonious balance between state security and individual liberties. This balance is not only essential for the protection of personal freedoms but also serves as a testament to the maturity and integrity of our democratic civilization. A robust democracy thrives on this equilibrium, reflecting a society that values both its security and the rights of its citizens.
Reference
