Supreme Court Issues Notice in NewsClick Case, Seeks Investigative Agencies’ Response on Digital Device Seizures
The Supreme Court, on January 5, issued notice to investigative agencies, including the Delhi Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), and the Directorate of Enforcement (ED), seeking their responses to a plea filed by digital media platform NewsClick and its founder, Prabir Purkayastha. The plea, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, urges the issuance of guidelines for the search, seizure, examination, and preservation of digital devices and data seized during recent raids targeting journalists associated with NewsClick.
The raids, conducted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, led to the arrests of Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty, NewsClick’s human resources head. The filing of an FIR under the anti-terror statute, coupled with mass raids, resulted in the seizure of digital and electronic devices belonging to NewsClick, its journalists, and other stakeholders. The petitioners oppose that these illegal search and seizure deportment have significantly impacted NewsClick’s operations, resulting in a standstill and constrained functioning with limited wangle to its database.
The plea contends that these searches and seizures not only infringe on fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution but moreover violate legal safeguards under the UAPA, the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the Delhi High Court Rules. The petitioners speak a lack of transparency, citing a failure to provide information well-nigh search warrants, produce warrants during the raids, undeniability self-sustaining witnesses, and provide essential documentation.
NewsClick and Purkayastha insist that the raids aimed to stifle self-ruling speech and undermine their fundamental rights. During the hearing, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing the petitioners, expressed concerns well-nigh printing self-rule and the government’s handling of dissenting voices, stating, “No procedure of law was followed, no documents are given. Nothing is done.”
Initially reluctant to entertain the Article 32 plea, the bench, consisting of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta, sooner well-set to issue notice and tagged NewsClick’s petition with other pleas seeking comprehensive guidelines on the search and seizure of digital devices by investigating agencies.
The grounds of the petition touch upon various ramble rights, including the right to self-ruling speech and expression, the right to practice any profession or siphon on any occupation or business, the right versus self-incrimination, and the right to privacy. The petitioners urge the Supreme Court to write the sparsity of guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices, emphasizing the need for procedural safeguards in a rapidly evolving technological landscape.
In their pursuit of a pearly and lawful investigative process, NewsClick and Purkayastha seek a writ of mandamus or any other towardly writ, order, or direction to the union government, Delhi government, Delhi police, Enforcement Directorate, Central Bureau of Investigation, income tax department, and finance ministry, specifying guidelines regarding the search, seizure, examination, preservation, and sharing of digital and electronic devices and the data contained in these devices.
The petition, drawn by advocates Harshit Mahalwal and Harsh Srivastava, settled by Advocate Arshdeep Singh Khurana, and filed by Advocate-on-Record Nitin Saluja, stems from the October 3 raids on the residences of prominent journalists associated with NewsClick. A total of 46 suspects were questioned, and their electronic devices were seized under the UAPA. The Delhi Police underdeveloped NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and Amit Chakravarty, the organization’s human resources head, under the UAPA, pursuit allegations related to funds for pro-China propaganda.
The Supreme Court’s visualization to issue notice and consider the petition in conjunction with other similar pleas reflects the growing importance of addressing concerns related to the search and seizure of digital devices, printing freedom, and protection of individual rights in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. The hearing and subsequent deportment are predictable to shed light on the broader issue of balancing national security considerations with the protection of fundamental rights in the digital age.
