Supreme Court seeks response from NewsClick, Purkayastha on ED plea against High Court order

The Supreme Court has not yet decided whether the money-laundering case should continue. On November 6, 2026, it issued notice in the ED’s appeal against the Delhi High Court’s decision to quash the case linked to alleged FDI violations.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana sought responses from NewsClick and its editor-in-chief, Prabir Purkayastha. They have four weeks to respond. The notice gives them a formal opportunity to answer the agency’s challenge.

The case remains under consideration. The ED asked for more time because Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju was unavailable. The ED also said Delhi Police was preparing a separate challenge to the quashing of the predicate-offence FIR. The Supreme Court will consider the parties’ responses before taking the matter forward.

The Directorate of Enforcement, or ED, is the agency challenging the Delhi High Court’s ruling. The High Court had quashed the Delhi Police FIR alleging FDI violations and said the related ED money-laundering proceedings could not continue. The ED’s appeal asks the Supreme Court to reconsider that outcome.

In practical terms, the ED wants the Supreme Court to examine whether the High Court was right to end the proceedings. The agency’s case is connected to the alleged receipt of ₹9.59 crore in foreign investment by NewsClick’s parent company during 2018-19. The alleged conduct formed the basis for the financial investigation.

The Supreme Court has only sought responses so far. It has not restored the case or ruled for either side. The ED sought four weeks because its lead counsel, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, was unavailable. Delhi Police is also preparing a related challenge to the FIR’s quashing.

The alleged investment amounted to ₹9.59 crore. It was received by PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd., the parent company of NewsClick, during the financial year 2018-19.

According to the Economic Offences Wing’s 2020 FIR, the money came from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC in the United States. The FIR alleged that this foreign direct investment violated foreign investment law. That allegation became the predicate offence connected to the later ED money-laundering investigation.

The figure is central because it identifies the transaction under scrutiny. However, the article describes the violation as an allegation, not as a final finding. The Delhi High Court later quashed the EOW FIR and said the related ED proceedings were also liable to be closed. The Supreme Court has now sought responses to the ED’s appeal, so the legal dispute continues.

Foreign direct investment, or FDI, is money invested by a person or company from one country into a business based in another country. It usually gives the foreign investor a financial stake or an ongoing business interest. Governments regulate it because foreign capital can affect important sectors, ownership patterns, and economic policy.

FDI rules can set limits on foreign ownership, require government approval, prescribe permitted investment routes, or demand disclosures and reporting. A violation occurs when an investment is made outside those conditions. In this case, the EOW alleged that PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. received ₹9.59 crore from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC, U.S., during 2018-19 in breach of foreign investment law.

That allegation triggered the legal chain described in the article. The EOW registered a 2020 FIR, and the ED registered a related money-laundering case. The Delhi High Court later quashed the FIR, while the Supreme Court is now considering the ED’s challenge.

The Delhi High Court quashed the Economic Offences Wing’s FIR because it found that continuing the case was “nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law.” The court’s reasoning removed the legal foundation for the related money-laundering proceedings.

The EOW FIR, registered in 2020, alleged that PPK NewsClick Studio Pvt. Ltd. received ₹9.59 crore from Worldwide Media Holdings LLC, U.S., during 2018-19 in violation of foreign investment law. That alleged FDI violation was treated as the predicate offence for the ED’s financial investigation.

The High Court said that once the FIR for the predicate offence was quashed, the ED’s Enforcement Case Information Report, or ECIR, was also liable to be closed. The ED disagrees with that result and appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has sought responses from NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha within four weeks.

A predicate offence is the underlying alleged crime that supports a money-laundering investigation. If that offence is legally removed, the alleged proceeds may no longer have the required criminal foundation. Therefore, the connected ED case can become unsustainable.

That is what the Delhi High Court held here. It quashed the EOW’s FIR concerning alleged FDI violations and said the ED’s Enforcement Case Information Report was also liable to be closed. The court described continuing the FIR as “nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law.”

This does not mean the Supreme Court has accepted that conclusion. The ED appealed the High Court order, and the Supreme Court issued notice to NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha. The respondents have four weeks to reply. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision will determine whether the related money-laundering proceedings remain closed or can continue.

Countries regulate foreign investment because money entering domestic companies can influence ownership, control, sensitive businesses, and the wider economy. Rules can require approvals, limit foreign participation, or demand accurate reporting. These controls also help authorities track where investment comes from and whether it follows national law.

Enforcement can begin with an investigation into the underlying conduct. In this case, the EOW registered a 2020 FIR alleging that NewsClick’s parent company received ₹9.59 crore from a U.S. investor in violation of FDI law. The ED then pursued a related money-laundering case through an ECIR. The alleged FDI breach therefore became the predicate offence for the financial proceedings.

The Delhi High Court later quashed the FIR and said the ECIR was liable to close. The ED appealed, and the Supreme Court sought responses from NewsClick and Prabir Purkayastha. The case shows how regulatory allegations can move through both criminal and financial-investigation systems, subject to court review.