By Dr. Gyan Pathak
Delhi High Court’s quashing of Delhi Police’s FIR and the consequential Enforcement Directorate’s (ED’s) ECIR filed against online media outlet Newsclick and its Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha is a victory for media freedom, and also an expose as to how Police and Central investigating agencies under PM Narendra Modi Raj are bent on suppressing independent journalism in the country. Justice Neena Bansal Krishna observed that ED proceedings were “not only mala fide, but also an arbitrary attack and abuse of powers on the free and impartial journalism of the Petitioners.”
The judgement, dated May 29, made available on June 10, does give a boost to the morale of the journalists who love and practice independent journalism to their own peril under the present ruling establishment’s oppressive environment and threat to their fundamental right to freedom of expression and right to life and liberty, but we must not conclude that it automatically settles the broader issue for media freedom in India, the country which ranked 157th, almost at the bottom of 180 countries, in the World Press Freedom Index 2026, with a score of 31.96 out of 100, prepared by Reporters Without Borders (RSF).
It was a continued sharp fall compared to World Press Freedom Index 2025 when it was ranked 151st with a score of 32.96. Obviously, despite the judgement, the independent journalism needs to be protected now and in the future against the attacks by the ruling establishment and others who have been enjoying immunity.
The judgement delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna and her observation provides a window though which one can easily see how and why India’s rank and score in Press Freedom has been falling towards the bottom of the countries of the world.
The allegations made in the Delhi Police’s Economic Offence Wing’s FIR was misappropriation of foreign funds and had registered a case under section 406 (misappropriation) and 420 (forgery) of Indian Penal Code (IPC). Justice Krishna held that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted in entirety, the essential ingredients of offences under section 406 and 420 of IPC were not made out. Therefore, the continuation of such FIR was nothing but a “gross abuse of the process of law”, and thereby quashing the EOW FIR as well as ECIR lodged by ED.
Justice Krishna observed, “It has been held that if the FIR under predicate offence is quashed, the ECIR automatically, is liable to be quashed. Consequently, the complete ECIR is also quashed. Once the ECIR itself is quashed, the prayer for supply of the copy of the ECIR has become infructuous.”
It is worth recalling here that the Delhi Police’s EOW’s FIR was registered in August 2020 after a complaint was forwarded to the department by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The complained had alleged that Newsclick had received Rs 9.59 crore in FDI from a US-Based Worldwide Media Holdings LLC through an allegedly overvalued share transaction designed to circumvent FDI restrictions.
Another allegation in the complaint forwarded by the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting was that a substantial portion of the funds was siphoned off through salaries, consultancy fees and other expenses.
Delhi Police then investigated the matter and forwarded the copy of the FIR to the ED for further action under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA). ED then registered and ECIR against Newsclick and its Editor-in-Chief Prabir Purkayastha and began money laundering investigation in 2023.
The matter was originally related to Newsclick’s parent company PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd, that received the foreign investment in 2018-19.
In August 2023, a report in the New York Times drew fresh attention, which alleged that Newsclick had links to networks associated with pro-China influence efforts. Newsclick denied the allegation of wrongdoings and said that it complied with Indian law.
In October 2023, Delhi Police registered a separate case under Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA), conducted raids and arrested Prabir Purkayastha and others under UAPA. This case is distinct from the other cases registered by Delhi Police and ED.
However, in May 2024 Supreme Court of India gave bail to Prabir Purkayastha and observed that his arrest and remand process in the UAPA matter was legally defective, while clarifying that it was not deciding the merits of the allegations.
The Delhi High Court’s current judgement has quashed only the FIR relating to misappropriation, cheating, criminal breach of trust, conspiracy, and irregularities linked to foreign funding and FDI norms. However, the separate cases including the UAPA will continue. It means the struggle of Newsclick and Prabir Purkayastha will continue.
Newsclick’s argument was that there was no regulatory permission required for FDI in online publication of news. The Court noted that Newsclick had even written a letter in 2017 to the Union Ministry of Information and Broadcasting requesting a clarification to the policy in respect of print media and also in respect of FDI in a company engaged in the business of online publication of news. The Ministry issued clarification in January 2018 and thereafter in April 2018 Newsclick received investment.
On this Justice Krishna observed, “From the response received from the Ministry in respect of FDI Policy, it was clearly evident that there was no cap on the online publication of news and thus, the Agreement between the Petitioner and M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC and, therefore, the Investment Agreement dated 20.03.2018 cannot be said to be in violation of any law or disclosing any criminal offence. The receiving of 1.5Million USD that were remitted on 11.04.2018 in exchange of 7.69% shares of the Petitioner Company.”
The court also observed, “The valuation was done through the established method of Discounted Cash Flow which was the accepted international standard including by the Ministry of Finance. All the relevant factors were duly examined by the in assessing the fair price value of the shares.” The court concluded that the valuation of the shares was carried out in accordance with FEMA regulations.
The court said that the allegation of siphoning the money received is not tenable, because even if it is accepted that there were over payments and excessive expenditure, then too it did not disclose any criminal offence. The Court also quashed the ED’s ECIR because it did not find any substance in the money laundering allegation. (IPA Service)
