News By R Rajgopal
NewsClick founders police remand: The Supreme Court Ordered a response from Delhi Police concerning NewsClick founders’ police remand petitions, challenging the Delhi High Court’s decision. They were arrested following New York Times’ claims of propagating Chinese content.
NewsClick founders police remand: The arrest was made on October 3 after several hours of questioning and both were remanded to seven days of police custody on October 4.
New Delhi, 19 Oct (City Times): NewsClick founders police remand: The Supreme Court on Thursday sought the response of Delhi Police to the petitions of NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakraborty against their police remand.
A bench issued notice and posted the case for further consideration on October 30.
Delhi HC order upholding trial court decision challenged
Purkayastha and Chakraborty moved the top court challenging the Delhi High Court’s order upholding the trial court decision to remand them to police custody.
The channel was paid to boost Chinese propaganda
Both were arrested following a series of raids conducted in the wake of allegations made in a New York Times article that NewsClick was being paid to boost Chinese propaganda.
The arrest was made on October 3 after several hours of questioning and both were remanded to seven days of police custody on October 4.
As per the FIR, the accused illegally received crores of rupees in foreign funds and deployed the same with a motive to disrupt the sovereignty, unity and security of India.
Substantial foreign funds illegally funnelled into India
he FIR said that secret inputs suggested that substantial foreign funds were illegally funnelled into India by both Indian and foreign entities.
These funds, amounting to crores of rupees, were received by NewsClick through illegal means over a span of five years.
Funds infused for Communist Party of China
The funds were fraudulently infused by Neville Roy Singham, an active member of the Communist Party of China’s propaganda department.
The petitioners had argued that their arrest and remand were illegal since they were not supplied with the grounds of arrest in violation of the recent Supreme Court judgment
