sc-adjourns-medical-bail-plea-of-newsclick-founder-prabir-purkayastha

The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned the medical bail plea of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha, who is currently lodged in Tihar jail under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), to April 22. The decision to postpone the hearing came after senior advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha, was unavailable.

 

Previously, the apex court had directed the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) to set up a medical board to examine Purkayastha's health condition. This direction followed claims by Sibal that the medical reports provided by prison authorities did not accurately reflect his client's health status.

 

The AIIMS director was tasked with forming this board to assess the comprehensive medical history and current health condition of Purkayastha based on both the jail records and additional medical evaluations.

 

The backdrop to Purkayastha’s detention involves allegations of receiving foreign funds aimed at promoting anti-national propaganda in India, purportedly from Chinese sources.

 

These charges led to his arrest on October 3, along with several raids involving 30 locations associated with NewsClick and its journalists. This case not only involves Purkayastha but also extends to Amit Chakravarty, the head of human resources at NewsClick, who later withdrew his petition from the Supreme Court against his arrest and agreed to become an approver in the case.

 

Following these arrests, the High Court upheld the trial court's decision, which had earlier sanctioned police custody for Purkayastha. Despite multiple legal challenges and appeals for bail, the courts have consistently denied these requests, citing the gravity of the accusations that touch upon the stability, integrity, sovereignty, and national security of India.

 

In their proceedings, the courts have pointed out the severe implications of the allegations against Purkayastha, suggesting that his actions could potentially disrupt India's sovereignty and undermine national security.

 

These judicial decisions reflect the delicate balance the legal system must maintain between protecting national interests and upholding the legal rights of individuals.

 

As the date for the next hearing approaches, the case continues to attract significant attention, highlighting issues related to press freedom, legal rights, and national security.

 

The outcome of this hearing could set important legal precedents concerning how cases involving journalists and national security concerns are handled in India.

 

This situation underscores the ongoing debate over the limits of press freedom in the face of national security and the responsibilities of journalists and media houses in a democracy.