TWO recent rulings of the Delhi High Court —quashing the Delhi Police and Enforcement Directorate proceedings against NewsClick and granting bail to Kashmiri human rights activist Khurram Parvez — underscore a fundamental constitutional principle: the exercise of State power must remain subject to due process and judicial scrutiny. NewsClick editor Prabir Purkayastha was accused of financial irregularities. By setting aside the cases against him and terming them a “gross abuse of the process of law”, the court underscored the need for investigative agencies to act within the bounds of legality. Investigative agencies undoubtedly have a duty to probe wrongdoing. However, criminal prosecution cannot rest on vague allegations or be used as a substitute for regulatory action. Equally important is the court’s recognition that arbitrary action against media institutions risks stiffling independent journalism, a cornerstone of democratic accountability.
The Khurram case involves a UAPA case linked to allegations of terror funding. It highlights another troubling reality: the phenomenon of incarceration without conclusion of trial. Stringent laws such as the UAPA impose formidable barriers to bail. But prolonged detention, stretching over years while trials inch forward, raises profound concerns about the right to personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution. Bail is not an acquittal, nor does it negate the seriousness of the charges. It merely affirms that the criminal justice system cannot permit the process to become punishment.
These rulings do not weaken the State’s authority to investigate crime or safeguard national security. Rather, they reinforce the principle that such objectives must be pursued within the framework of the law. In a democracy, courts serve not merely as arbiters of guilt and innocence but as guardians against executive excess.
