Parties and roles: Prabir Purkayastha is the appellant/applicant who initiated or carried the matter to the Supreme Court. State (NCT of Delhi) is the respondent opposing the relief or defending the challenged action, decision, law or proceeding. The labels “plaintiff” and “defendant” are generally not used here because this is an appellate, special or Supreme Court proceeding. Delhi Police alleged that NewsClick received funds connected with activities prejudicial to India's sovereignty. Purkayastha was arrested in the early morning and produced for remand without written grounds being supplied to him in time to consult counsel effectively. The dispute was not a final determination of guilt; it concerned the minimum procedural protection at the moment the State takes away liberty under a stringent anti-terror statute. The Court considered whether merely telling an arrested person the gist orally satisfies the statutory and constitutional requirement. Procedural setting: 03 Oct 2023: NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha was arrested under UAPA. | 04 Oct 2023: He was remanded before his lawyer received the written remand papers. | Oct 2023-Feb 2024: Delhi High Court upheld the arrest and remand. | 15 May 2024: Supreme Court invalidated the arrest and remand. The central problem before the Court was must grounds of arrest under UAPA be furnished in writing? Did the secretive remand process and delayed access to counsel invalidate the arrest and remand? Does the Pankaj Bansal principle apply to UAPA? The controversy was considered in the framework of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, ss.43A, 43B and 45; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, together with Constitution arts.21 and 22(1). The wider importance of the case lies in personal liberty; written grounds of arrest; effective legal representation; procedural fairness; strict construction of penal powers.

Purkayastha argued written grounds were essential to challenge arrest and seek bail, relying on Pankaj Bansal under the PMLA. The State argued UAPA required only communication of grounds and oral information was sufficient, with fuller material available in remand documents. Competing positions in context: Prabir Purkayastha's position: as the appellant/applicant, Prabir Purkayastha sought the relief indicated by the questions of law and challenged the opposing action or interpretation. The claim was that the Court should apply the governing provisions consistently with Personal liberty; written grounds of arrest; effective legal representation; procedural fairness; strict construction of penal powers. State (NCT of Delhi)'s position: as respondent, State (NCT of Delhi) resisted that relief, defended the impugned measure or decision, or proposed a narrower interpretation of the Court's power and the applicable law. The Court therefore had to test these submissions against Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, ss.43A, 43B and 45; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and Constitution arts.21 and 22(1), the record of the proceedings and binding precedent. This summary states the principal controversy in accessible language; the official judgment remains authoritative for counsel-specific submissions and paragraph references.

The arrest and remand were declared invalid because written grounds were not communicated before remand. Article 22(1) and Section 43B UAPA require effective, meaningful information so the arrested person can obtain legal advice and contest detention; written communication is the proper safeguard. Purkayastha was ordered released, subject to lawful bail conditions, without deciding the merits of the accusations. Effect of the decision: the ruling explains or applies Personal liberty; written grounds of arrest; effective legal representation; procedural fairness; strict construction of penal powers and binds the parties to the operative directions made in Criminal Appeal No. 1548/2024. It also guides lower courts and public authorities on materially similar questions under Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, ss.43A, 43B and 45; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Scope and caution: only the ratio decidendi and operative directions of the signed judgment are binding; summaries should not be treated as substitutes for the judgment, separate opinions, later review orders or subsequent precedent.

Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, ss.43A, 43B and 45; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

Constitution arts.21 and 22(1)

Personal liberty; written grounds of arrest; effective legal representation; procedural fairness; strict construction of penal powers