In a significant ruling for press freedom and criminal procedure, the Delhi high court has quashed the FIR registered by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing (EOW) and the Enforcement Directorate’s (ED) money laundering proceedings against independent news portal NewsClick and its editor-in-chief Prabir Purkayastha.

The order, delivered by Justice Neena Bansal Krishna on May 29, 2026, became publicly available on June 10. The court held that the continuation of the case was “nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law.”

Purkayastha had approached the Delhi high court seeking quashing of the EOW FIR and the Enforcement Case Information Report (ECIR), the document through which the ED initiates proceedings under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).

In his plea, Purkayastha argued that the FIR had been “registered malafide, merely to harass the Petitioner. The contents of the FIR are totally vague, baseless and contains frivolous allegations, even if they are accepted on their face value, they do not disclose any cognizable offence.”

The court accepted his plea and quashed the proceedings. The judgment noted that despite “bald assertions” of a criminal conspiracy, investigators had failed to place any incriminating material on record.

Speaking to Alt News after the judgment, Purkayastha said the impact of the case extended far beyond the legal proceedings. “It was a huge blow to the organization. Recovering from it is not very easy. And not only the organization, but you must take into account the human cost involved. Journalists suddenly lost their jobs, they were hounded, they were subjected to various investigations, their devices were seized. For a journalist, computers and phones are their most important instruments of work. They being seized multiple times is a huge blow to their professional life.”

What was the Case?

The case against Purkayastha and NewsClick was registered in 2020. According to the ED and Delhi Police, NewsClick received Rs 9.59 crore through foreign direct investment (FDI) from US-based Worldwide Media Holdings LLC on April 11, 2018.

The agencies alleged that Worldwide Media Holdings LLC purchased NewsClick shares at an inflated price of approximately Rs 11,510 per share in order to circumvent regulations governing foreign investment in digital news media.

Investigators further alleged that NewsClick received a total of Rs 38 crore in foreign funding linked to China-based entities with the aim of propagating pro-China content in India’s media ecosystem. According to the ED, besides the initial investment, NewsClick received an additional Rs 28 crore between 2018 and 2022.

The agency claimed these funds were shown as export remittances and alleged that NewsClick failed to produce sufficient evidence that services worth crores had actually been delivered to foreign entities. It alleged that the payments were a means of routing foreign funding into the company.

In 2023, Delhi Police invoked provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), alleging that the funding trail was linked to Neville Roy Singham, an Indian-origin businessman alleged to have links with the Chinese Communist Party. The agencies claimed Worldwide Media Holdings LLC had been founded by Jason Pfetcher, an associate of Singham.

The allegations linking NewsClick to Neville Roy Singham gained national attention after a 2023 New York Times investigation reported that organisations linked to Singham had financed a global network accused of promoting Chinese government narratives. The report later formed part of the backdrop to the investigations launched against NewsClick.

Purkayastha and NewsClick’s HR head Amit Chakravarty were arrested in October 2023.

Investigators also alleged that funds received by NewsClick were used to make payments to activist Gautam Navlakha, journalist Paranjoy Guha Thakurta, activist Urmilesh and activist Teesta Setalvad.

Arbitrary Attack and Abuse of Powers on Free and Impartial Journalism: HC

The EOW FIR, registered on August 26, 2020, invoked Sections 406, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The ED initiated proceedings shortly thereafter and conducted searches at NewsClick’s office and journalists’ residences in February 2021.

Quashing the FIR, Justice Krishna observed in paragraph 86: “The continuation of such FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law and is hereby, quashed.”

It further observed that the 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 court also held that even if the allegations in the FIR were accepted at face value, the essential ingredients of offences under Sections 406 and 420 IPC were not made out.

A key factor in the judgment was the Reserve Bank of India’s response to investigators. Purakayastha relied on an excerpt from the EOW’s own status report, which stated:

“During the course of investigation reply from RBI has been received where in it is mentioned that as per the Form FCGPR submitted, the foreign inward remittance was under automatic route and there was no delay in issue of shares as well as reporting, as per the extant FEMA regulations in case of M/s PPK New Click Studio Pvt. Limited is concerned.”

The court observed:

“The bare perusal of the above makes it evident that the entire basis for the impugned FIR which is alleged wrongful foreign direct investment (FDI) received by the Petitioner No.1, has been refuted by RBI itself, which it appears to have written to EOW that the investment was under the automatic remittance, and there was no violation of FEMA regulations. From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that no cognizable offence has been made out against the Petitioners and the FIR is liable to be quashed.”

The court also rejected the allegation that the valuation of NewsClick shares constituted a criminal offence. It noted that while the shares had been valued at Rs 9,188 per share, they were ultimately purchased at Rs 11,510 per share.

Regarding the pricing of the shares, the court held: “It is an economic decision which does not spell out any criminal offence.”

The judgment also noted that when the investment was received, there was no cap on FDI in digital news media.

The court referred to a December 20, 2017 letter sent by NewsClick to the Union ministry of information and broadcasting seeking clarification on whether online news publications were covered by FDI restrictions applicable to print media. In its January 5, 2018 response, the ministry clarified that “online publications on website/web portal do not fall under the ambit of print media.”

The ED had also argued that NewsClick incurred losses because of excessive expenditure on salaries, consultancy fees and rent, and that a significant portion of foreign investment was diverted through such payments.

Rejecting the argument, the court observed:

“However, when a Company is functioning especially in the business of digital print media, such expenses are bound to occur. Even if it is accepted that there were over payments and excessive expenditure incurred by the Petitioner, then too it does not disclose any criminal offence. The allegation of siphoning is, therefore, not tenable.”

On the charge of cheating under Section 420 IPC, the court held:

“For the offence of cheating, it is necessary that there must be an aggrieved person who has been cheated out of his valuable property. In this case, M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC is the entity which had forwarded 1.5 Million USD to the Petitioner. However, there is no Complaint whatsoever, by the Company about having been cheated by the Petitioner.”

It further observed:

“There is nothing which has emerged even during the investigations as reflected in the Status Report, that there was any person who was aggrieved or who was cheated by the Petitioner. The offence of cheating even if all the allegations made are admitted, is not established.”

The court similarly found no basis for the charge under Section 406 IPC:

“There may have been a business transaction of investment and purchase of shares by M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC on payment of 1.5 Million USD, but by no stretch of interpretation can it be said to be an entrustment by M/s Worldwide Media Holdings LLC or misappropriation by the Petitioner.”

The judgment concluded: “Even if all the allegations are accepted, no offence under 406 or 420 IPC is disclosed in the FIR and in the subsequent investigations that have been undertaken.”

The court also quashed proceedings under Sections 3 and 4 of the PMLA. It held that an alleged FEMA violation is not a scheduled offence under the anti-money laundering law.

Addressing the ED’s claim of criminal conspiracy, the court observed:

“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.”

The court further noted:

“The response of the ED itself reflects that even if the entire allegations against the Petitioners are admitted, no offence is disclosed in the FIR. Pertinently, extensive investigations have been carried out by ED for about a year and a half and Petitioners as well as its employees have been summoned and examined many a times, but nothing incriminating till date has been found or placed on record. Aside from bald assertions of there being a criminal conspiracy, there is not a whisper of any incriminating allegation, which would even remotely suggest the commission of the offence punishable under Section 4 PMLA.”

Quashing the ECIR, the court held:

“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.”

Pro-people Journalism our Only Fault: NewsClick

Following the judgment, NewsClick issued a statement saying it had always maintained that the cases against it were attacks on press freedom.

“Newsclick has always maintained that the numerous cases and charges against it are attacks on the freedom of the press. Newsclick’s only ‘fault’ has been to practice journalism that covers people’s movements.”

The portal said the judgment vindicated its position and thanked its staff, contributors, lawyers, readers and supporters.

Process is the Punishment

For NewsClick and Purkayastha, the allegations triggered years of investigations, raids, arrests and prolonged legal battles.

The ordeal began in 2021 when the ED searched the portal’s offices and residences linked to its management as part of a money laundering investigation. In October 2023, Delhi Police arrested Purkayastha under UAPA allegations relating to the same funding trail.

He remained in custody until May 2024, when the Supreme Court ordered his release on bail, holding that the procedure followed during his arrest and remand was illegal.

The high court judgment also records that the FIR and ECIR were not initially supplied to Purkayastha despite repeated requests. According to the submissions before the court, the documents were provided only after intervention by the chief metropolitan magistrate, Delhi, in June 2021.

The court also recorded Purakayastha’s allegation that while the first EOW status report contained the RBI’s clarification that there was no FEMA violation, a subsequent status report omitted that reference.

The judgment notes submissions that repeated summons and investigations without furnishing the ECIR were intended to create a chilling effect on journalists and independent reporting.

Asked how many people lost their jobs as a result of the proceedings against NewsClick, Purkyastha said, “Taking together staff journalists, independent contributors and stringers, the number is around 75-80.”

While the Delhi High Court has quashed the EOW FIR and the connected ED proceedings, the separate UAPA case against Purkayastha and NewsClick remains pending.