NEWSCLICK: UAPA INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGED ILLEGAL FUNDING
This article was written by Khushi Anand, a student of Symbiosis Law School, Noida
Introduction
NewsClick founded by Prabir Purkayashta, who also serves as its Editor- in- chief, is owned by PPK NEWSCLICK Studio Private Limited. On 3rd of October, a specialized unit of Delhi police conducted searches at 35 locations, including the NewsClick news portal’s office and journalists connected to it. During the search operation, law enforcement officials confiscated a lot of electronic devices, including mobile phones and laptops, and extracted data from the hard disks. This has sparked anger among journalists and human rights organisations, who view it as a part of an escalating crackdown on media freedom during Prime minister Narendra Modi’s administration. [1]
Why has the police acted against NewsClick?
The action was initiated by police in response to a case filed on August 17, citing the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act and Sections 153A (inciting enmity between groups) and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The news portal was under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate for the allegations of money laundering. In 2021, the Delhi Hight court had issued a restraining order preventing the federal agency from taking coercive action against NewsClick and its editor- in- chief, Prabir Purkayastha. However, in August, the news portal faced further controversy when a New York Times report alleged its involvement in a global network receiving funding from American billionaire Neville Roy Singham, who reportedly had close ties to the Chinese Government media apparatus. The news report referenced certain emails allegedly authored by Singham and directed to NewsClick. In these emails, Singham expressed a desire for a sequence of articles to emphasize China’s efforts in managing the Covid-19 pandemic. The news report also mentioned a video released by NewsClick with the title “China’s history continues to inspire the working class”. The news report created a significant stir during the Monsoon Session of Parliament, as the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) criticized by the Opposition on this matter.
What was NewsClick’s response?
The NewsClick website issued a statement indicating that they had not been furnished with a copy of the First Information Report (FIR). The statement also mentioned that electronic devices belonging to their employees were confiscated without proper seizure documentation, and their emails and communications were subject to analysis. NewsClick also stated that their office has been sealed in a blatant attempt at preventing them from continuing their reporting and neither they publish pro- China propaganda nor they take directions from Singham.
India’s growing media suppression.
Activists and human rights organizations have raised concerns about press freedoms ever since Narendra Modi of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) assumed office in 2014. India’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index has dropped to 161st from its previous position at 150th, marking its lowest point ever. The government has refuted these findings, challenging the methodology used by the group and asserting that India maintains a free press. The recent incidents could provide reasons for India’s decline in the Index.
In September, authorities in Indian-administered Kashmir issued threats of legal action against the BBC for publishing an article on India’s restrictions on the Kashmiri press.
In August, Indian authorities restricted access to the website of the independent Kashmiri news outlet, Kashmir Walla.
In June, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) reported that journalists who were critical of the Indian government and the ruling BJP had been subjected to imprisonment, harassment, and surveillance.
The INDIA alliance, a coalition comprising 28 opposition political parties, asserted that over the past nine years, the government has intentionally targeted and oppressed the media through the utilization of investigative agencies. The coalition stated that the “coercive” measures employed by Modi’s government were primarily directed at media organizations and journalists who courageously reported the truth and challenged those in power.[2]
What is Unlawful activities (prevention) act, 1967?
To safeguard India’s sovereignty and integrity, the Constitution (Sixteenth Amendment) Act of 1963 was enacted, granting Parliament the power to impose reasonable restrictions on:
- Freedom of speech and expression.
- The right to assemble peaceably and without arms.
- The right to form associations or unions.
Subsequently, the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) of 1967 was introduced to deter organizations within India from participating in unlawful activities. This law is commonly known as the Anti-Terror Law.
Background of UAPA act
In the 1960s, India considered tough laws to prevent secession demands. The Naxalbari uprising in 1967 led to the Unlawful Acts (Prevention) Ordinance in 1966, allowing the government to label groups as “unlawful” if they promoted India’s breakup. Before the UAPA, groups were banned under the 1952 law, but the Supreme Court found it lacking oversight. UAPA introduced a Tribunal for review within six months. Today, UAPA, modified in 2004 and 2013, combats terrorism funding and punishes terrorist acts and threats to national and economic security. Bans on unlawful groups increased from two to five years in 2013. The 2004 changes aligned the law with UN anti-terrorism resolutions. In 2019, the law was updated to let the government label individuals as terrorists[3].
Landmark cases
K.A. Najeeb v Union of India[4]
Section 43D(5) of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 establishes strict conditions for the approval of bail.
Najeeb, who has been in custody since 2015, tried six times to get bail from the Special Court and the High Court of Kerala between 2015 and 2019. However, he only got charged in 2020, and there were still 276 witnesses left to be examined. The Supreme Court, with three judges, said that he could get bail because his Right to Life was being violated. He had waited for bail for a very long time, and he had already been in jail for more than five years. Meanwhile, 13 of his fellow accused had received sentences of more than eight years.
Mukesh v State of Tripura[5]
In November 2021, two lawyers and a journalist, submitted a request to the Supreme Court questioning the constitutionality of Section 43D(5). These petitioners were charged under the Act because of their social media posts discussing violence against religious minorities in Tripura. They argue that Section 43D(5) is unclear, grants excessive authority to the NIA, and has a chilling effect on free speech. A three-judge panel headed by Chief Justice Ramana has directed the Tripura police to refrain from taking any coercive measures against the accused and has also issued a notice to the Union government regarding the constitutional challenge.
Bhima Koregaon case
In the widely-known Bhima Koregaon case, two human rights activists, Anand Teltumbde and Gautam Navlakha, were refused bail. This case revolves around conflicts between Dalits and higher-caste Hindus. Furthermore, in 2020, the Indian Supreme Court rejected the request for anticipatory bail from these two activists. Several more activists were arrested in 2018 for their alleged involvement in the same case and are still detained, despite the prosecution’s inability to substantiate any charges against them. The Indian Supreme Court even upheld the arrest of these activists in 2018.[6]
Father Stan Swamy Case (Bhima Koregaon case)
Father Stan Swamy was a case involving an elderly Jesuit priest in India. He was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), a stringent anti-terrorism law. He was accused of having links with a banned organization and was detained for his alleged involvement in certain activities. The case drew attention and concern because Father Stan Swamy was in poor health, and his arrest raised questions about human rights and the use of UAPA. Unfortunately, Father Stan Swamy passed away in July 2021 while still in custody. His case highlighted concerns about the prolonged detention of individuals under the UAPA and the need for a fair and just legal process[7].
Conclusion
There are two points of view to look at this law. One perspective is laws like UAPA are necessary for the national security of our nation. But the other perspective is that laws must be in accordance with the constitution but this law blurs the line between disagreement and sedition. Right to dissent is our fundamental right and the government should protect it instead of curtailing it. While not denying the fact that these strict laws are necessary to deal with the terrorism activities but giving too much arbitrary power to the authorities and curtailing fundamental rights is not at all justified. Media is the fourth pillar of the society and by looking at the current situation of NewsClick it can be said that this law is threat to the democracy. Also, the convection rate under UAPA act is low to only 2.2 percent which is clear evidence that this act is being misused.
[1] https://www.hindustantimes.com/
[2] https://www.aljazeera.com/
[4] K.A. Najeeb v Union of India, Criminal appeal no 98 of 2021
[5] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2111167/
[6] https://www.barandbench.com/
[7] https://www.barandbench.com/
Related Posts
About The Author
India government was not allowed US President to face press conference