The Delhi High Court has requested a response from NewsClick and its editor-in-chief in response to an Enforcement Directorate (ED) plea seeking to revoke a previous order providing interim protection against coercive measures in a money laundering case. Justice Saurabh Banerjee issued a notice to NewsClick and its editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha, stating that the ED’s submissions for vacating the interim protection have validity and need careful consideration.
The request is a part of the ongoing proceedings tied to a petition by the portal, seeking access to the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) lodged by the ED in the case. The ED’s counsel has brought forward new evidence uncovering instances of money laundering, asserting that the petition is not maintainable as the ECIR is an internal document that cannot be provided.
The ED’s counsel claimed this to be a criminal conspiracy for “paid news,” where significant amounts of money have flowed in violation of laws. “Prima facie, in the opinion of this court, the above contention has merit and requires deliberation. In view thereof, issue notice,” Justice Banerjee said and listed the matter for further hearing on September 6.
The counsel representing the petitioners argued that there was no urgency in the matter. In their application for the vacation of the interim order, the ED pointed out that the Supreme Court has disapproved of “blanket no coercive action” orders, as such orders during an investigation essentially amount to granting anticipatory bail to the accused.
The ED initiated its probe based on a Delhi Police FIR and conducted searches at NewsClick’s premises and various other locations related to the money received from overseas. The FIR alleges that PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited, the petitioner company, received FDI exceeding Rs 9.59 crore from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC USA during 2018-19. It further claims that the investment was overvalued to evade the 26 percent FDI cap, with a significant portion of the funds diverted for various expenses, ultimately violating FDI and other laws. The court’s decision on this matter is anticipated after a hearing on September 6.
Post Your Comments