Supreme Court issues notice to NewsClick, Prabir Purkayastha on ED plea against HC order
Synopsis
The Supreme Court has issued notice to NewsClick and editor Prabir Purkayastha on the ED's challenge to a Delhi High Court order that wiped out a money-laundering case against them — keeping alive a legal battle over a USD 1.5 million foreign investment that agencies alleged was used to circumvent FDI rules. The 14 December hearing will be pivotal.
Key Takeaways
The Supreme Court issued notice to NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha on 6 November 2026 on the ED's Special Leave Petition.
The ED challenges the Delhi High Court's 29 May judgment quashing the ECIR and predicate FIR No.
116/2020 under PMLA.
The case involves an investment of USD 1.5 million (₹9.59 crore) received by NewsClick in April 2018 from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC for a 7.69% stake.
The Delhi High Court had found no incriminating material after a year-and-a-half of ED investigation and cited RBI clearance of the remittance.
The matter is listed for next hearing on 14 December ; a separate UAPA case by Delhi Police Special Cell remains independent of these proceedings.
The Supreme Court on Friday, 6 November 2026, issued notice to digital news portal NewsClick and its editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha on a plea filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that had quashed a money-laundering case against the outlet and its founder. The apex court's order keeps the ED's appeal alive and sets the stage for a fresh round of legal scrutiny over allegations of foreign investment irregularities.
What the Supreme Court Ordered
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi, and Justice V. Mohana passed the notice while hearing the ED's Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Delhi High Court's 29 May judgment. The matter has been posted for further hearing on 14 December.
During the hearing, the court was also informed that the Delhi Police was separately in the process of challenging the High Court's decision to quash the predicate offence FIR registered by its Economic Offences Wing (EOW). The two challenges, though related, are being pursued through separate proceedings.
What the ED's Appeal Challenges
The ED's plea targets the High Court's order quashing the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR) registered under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), along with the underlying FIR No. 116/2020 registered by the EOW under Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code. The ECIR had been registered on 2 September 2020.
The proceedings stemmed from allegations relating to an investment of USD 1.5 million (approximately ₹9.59 crore) received by NewsClick in April 2018 from a US-based entity, Worldwide Media Holdings LLC, in exchange for a 7.69 per cent stake in the company. Investigating agencies had alleged the shares were issued at an inflated valuation to circumvent foreign direct investment (FDI) restrictions applicable to digital news media, and that a substantial portion of the funds was diverted towards salaries, consultancy fees, rent, and other expenses.
How the High Court Had Ruled
A single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna had held that even if the allegations were accepted in their entirety, they did not disclose the commission of the offences alleged in the FIR. The High Court found that the ED's allegations of criminal conspiracy were not supported by material establishing an illegal objective or the use of unlawful means.
The judgment had stated: 'Merely because the parties entered into an agreement is not sufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy, unless the ED is able to show what is the illegal objective or the means which have been adopted by the petitioners and the other persons which can be termed as criminal conspiracy.' It further observed that despite extensive investigations lasting approximately a year and a half, 'nothing incriminating till date has been found or placed on record.'
The High Court had also cited the Reserve Bank of India's (RBI) response, which indicated the foreign inward remittance was received under the automatic route with no delay in share issuance or reporting under applicable FEMA regulations. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent, it held that once the predicate offence FIR was quashed, the money-laundering proceedings could not independently survive — leading it to quash the ECIR entirely.
NewsClick's Position and the Separate UAPA Case
NewsClick and Purkayastha had denied all allegations, maintaining that the investment was made through legitimate banking channels and in full compliance with the applicable regulatory framework.
Notably, the proceedings now before the Supreme Court are entirely separate from a Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) case registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell against NewsClick and Purkayastha over distinct allegations relating to foreign funding and a purported conspiracy. That case remains independent of the EOW FIR and the ED proceedings challenged before the Supreme Court.
What Happens Next
With the Supreme Court now seized of the ED's challenge, the Delhi High Court's order quashing the ECIR and predicate FIR remains subject to the apex court's final ruling. The next hearing on 14 December will determine the procedural roadmap, and the Delhi Police's parallel challenge could consolidate the legal proceedings further. The outcome will have significant implications for how courts weigh predicate-offence quashing against the independent survival of PMLA proceedings — a question of broad relevance beyond this case alone.
Point of View
But it does extend legal uncertainty over NewsClick at a time when the broader question of PMLA's reach — specifically, whether money-laundering charges can survive the quashing of the predicate FIR — remains unsettled. The Delhi High Court's ruling was grounded in a well-established legal principle, yet the ED's persistence signals that agencies are unwilling to let that principle curtail PMLA proceedings without a definitive apex court ruling. What mainstream coverage underplays is the structural stakes: how the Supreme Court rules here will affect dozens of PMLA cases where the predicate offence is contested. The UAPA case running in parallel adds a layer of complexity that this SLP alone cannot resolve.
NationPress
6 Nov 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
Why did the Supreme Court issue notice to NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha?
The Supreme Court issued notice on 6 November 2026 because the Enforcement Directorate filed a Special Leave Petition challenging a Delhi High Court order that had quashed a money-laundering case against NewsClick and its editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha. The apex court will now hear the ED's arguments before deciding whether to restore the quashed proceedings.
What did the Delhi High Court rule in the NewsClick money-laundering case?
A single-judge Bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna quashed FIR No. 116/2020 registered by Delhi Police's EOW and the ED's ECIR registered under the PMLA on 29 May, finding that the allegations — even if accepted fully — did not disclose the offences charged. The court also noted that despite extensive investigation, no incriminating material had been placed on record, and that the RBI had confirmed the foreign remittance was received under the automatic route in compliance with FEMA regulations.
What is the NewsClick foreign investment case about?
The case centres on a USD 1.5 million (approximately ₹9.59 crore) investment received by NewsClick in April 2018 from US-based Worldwide Media Holdings LLC in exchange for a 7.69% stake. Investigating agencies alleged the shares were issued at an inflated valuation to circumvent FDI restrictions on digital news media and that funds were diverted to salaries, consultancy fees, and rent. NewsClick denied these allegations, stating the investment was made through legitimate banking channels.
When is the next Supreme Court hearing in the NewsClick ED case?
The Supreme Court has posted the matter for further hearing on 14 December. At that stage, the court is expected to set out the procedural roadmap, including whether the Delhi Police's parallel challenge to the High Court order will be consolidated with the ED's SLP.
Is the UAPA case against NewsClick the same as the ED money-laundering case?
No. The UAPA case was registered by the Delhi Police Special Cell over separate allegations relating to foreign funding and an alleged conspiracy, and it remains entirely independent of the EOW FIR and the ED proceedings now before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court's ruling on the ED's SLP will not directly affect the UAPA case.
