The Supreme Court on Friday (January 5) issued notices to investigating agencies like Delhi police, CBI, and ED for their response to NewsClick’s plea seeking guidelines for the search and seizure of digital devices. Notably, the Supreme Court said that it was not happy that the media group approached it directly without going to lower courts, but then agreed to hear the plea.
NewClick is facing probes after it was found that the digital media portal is funded by Chinese propaganda machinery. It has been alleged that a large amount of funds to the news portal allegedly came from China to ‘disrupt the sovereignty of India’ and cause disaffection against the country. In October 2023, Newsclick founder and editor Prabir Purkayastha and its HR head Amit Chakravarty were arrested by Delhi Police under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). The police had also raided offices NewsClick and seized digital devices of the portal, its journalists and other staff.
The Supreme Court was hearing a writ petition filed under Article 32 of the Constitution by NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha. In the plea, they have sought the issuance of guidelines regarding the search, seizure, examination, and preservation of digital devices and data seized by law enforcement agencies. Advocate Kapil Sibal representing the petitioners said, “No procedure of law was followed, no documents are given. Nothing is done.”
The plea contended that the seizure of digital and electronic devices by Delhi Police is illegal, and it has severely impacted the portal’s operations. They claimed that the searches and seizures were not only an infringement on fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution, but also violated legal safeguards under the UAPA, the Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, and the Delhi High Court Rules.
NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha claimed that as there is no due process prescribed for such seizures, it is stifling free speech and undermining of fundamental rights. Therefore, they filed the plea under Article 32 of the constitution, which provides right to move the Supreme Court for enforcement of fundamental rights.
However, the Supreme Court bench of bench of Justices BR Gavai and Sandeep Mehta was reluctant to accept the plea under Article 32. Justice Gavai said, “We don’t appreciate everyone coming directly under Article 32.”
Kapil Sibal arguing for the petitioners said that the court is already hearing similar petitions on this issue. He pointed out PILs filed by Foundation for Media Professionals and a group of five academicians seeking guidelines for the seizure of personal electronic devices by investigating agencies. During the hearing of those pleas, Additional Solicitor SV Raju had assured the court that the union government will soon come up with robust search and seizure guidelines, and in the meantime, all central agencies will follow the 2020 Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) Manual on digital evidence.
“They’ll stop our business, seize everything, put people inside. It’s very unfair,” Kapil Sibal argued.
After hearing the arguments, the bench agreed to issue notice to probe notices on the plea. The court also tagged the petition with other existing petitions with the same demand, to form comprehensive guidelines on search and seizure of digital devices by investigating agencies.
