ED moves Supreme Court against quashing of NewsClick FIR, money-laundering probe

The Enforcement Directorate has filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against a Delhi High Court decision involving NewsClick and its founder-editor, Prabir Purkayastha. The ED wants the Supreme Court to reverse the order that quashed the original FIR and the money-laundering proceedings that followed it.

The FIR was registered by the Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing in 2020. It concerned alleged irregularities in foreign investment received by PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd during 2018-19. The ED later opened a money-laundering investigation based on the same underlying allegations.

The High Court quashed both the EOW FIR and the subsequent ED proceedings in May. ED officials said they have now challenged that ruling in the apex court. The Supreme Court’s decision will determine whether the FIR and the connected money-laundering probe remain closed or can continue.

An FIR, or First Information Report, is the formal police record of information about an alleged offence. It begins a criminal investigation. A money-laundering investigation examines whether money connected to unlawful activity was received, transferred, disguised, or used to acquire assets. These are separate legal processes, but one can arise from the other.

In this case, Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing registered a 2020 FIR over foreign investment received by PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd. Investigators alleged that the investment structure bypassed rules for digital news media. The ED then opened a money-laundering probe based on the allegations in that case.

The Delhi High Court later quashed both the EOW FIR and the ED proceedings. The ED has challenged that decision in the Supreme Court. Therefore, the status of the money-laundering case is tied to the legal fate of the original FIR and the Supreme Court’s ruling.

Investigators identified ₹92 crores received by PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd from companies linked to Neville Roy Singham. The ED alleged that this money was received against exports of non-existent services. The amount is separate from the article’s reference to ₹29.59 crore in foreign direct investment from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC during 2018-19.

The ED said part of the funds was used by Prabir Purkayastha to buy his flat in Saket. The agency attached property worth ₹4.93 crores in the case. Another passage reports that it attached a ₹4.52-crore south Delhi flat and fixed deposits worth ₹41 lakh during the investigation.

These figures describe assets or money attached by the ED, not necessarily the total value of all alleged transactions. The differing flat figures appear in separate descriptions within the article. The ED’s appeal means the Supreme Court may decide whether the proceedings connected with these alleged transactions can continue.

Investigators alleged that PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd used a foreign-investment structure intended to circumvent restrictions governing investment in digital news media. The allegations mattered because the company operated a digital news portal, an area where the investigators said foreign investment rules applied.

The ED alleged that NewsClick received ₹29.59 crore from US-based Worldwide Media Holdings LLC during 2018-19 by overvaluing its shares. It further alleged that 45% of this investment was diverted to pay salaries, consultancy fees, rent, and other expenses for ulterior motives. The ED separately identified ₹92 crores received against exports of non-existent services.

The agency also alleged that part of these funds was used by Prabir Purkayastha to buy a Saket flat. The Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and ED proceedings in May. The ED has appealed, so the Supreme Court will consider whether these allegations can be pursued.

The Delhi High Court’s order currently prevents the original FIR and the related money-laundering proceedings from continuing in the form challenged before the court. The ED has asked the Supreme Court to reverse that decision. The Supreme Court’s ruling will therefore determine whether the High Court’s quashing remains effective.

If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court, the EOW FIR and the ED proceedings would remain quashed. That would leave the ED’s allegations about foreign investment, alleged non-existent services, and attached assets without these proceedings continuing under the challenged case. The article does not describe any separate outcome.

If the Supreme Court overturns the High Court, the FIR and connected ED proceedings could be restored or allowed to proceed according to the Court’s directions. Investigators could then continue pursuing the allegations. The article confirms only that the ED has filed an appeal; it does not predict the Supreme Court’s decision or final outcome.

The Delhi Police’s Economic Offences Wing was the first investigating body in this case. It registered the 2020 FIR over alleged irregularities in foreign direct investment received by PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd. Its case supplied the underlying allegations for the later proceedings.

The Enforcement Directorate then investigated alleged money laundering connected with those transactions. It identified funds received from companies linked to Neville Roy Singham, alleged payments for non-existent services, and assets linked to Prabir Purkayastha. The ED also attached property and fixed deposits during its probe.

The Delhi High Court reviewed the case and quashed both the EOW FIR and the subsequent ED proceedings in May. The ED has challenged that order before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is now the next court considering whether the High Court was right to end the FIR and the connected money-laundering investigation.

Foreign direct investment, or FDI, is money invested by a person or company based in one country into a business in another country. In this case, the alleged investment came from US-based Worldwide Media Holdings LLC and went to PPK Newsclick Studio Pvt Ltd, which operates NewsClick.

The article says investigators believed the investment was structured to bypass restrictions governing foreign investment in digital news media. It also reports the ED’s allegation that shares were overvalued and that part of the money was diverted for salaries, consultancy, rent, and other expenses. These details explain why the investment became the subject of investigation.

Governments regulate foreign funding of news organizations because ownership or financial support can affect control and independence in a sensitive public-information sector. That general purpose is established policy context, while the article specifically identifies alleged rule circumvention as the concern here. The High Court quashed the proceedings, and the ED has appealed to the Supreme Court.