The Supreme Court of India has sought responses from digital news platform NewsClick and its founder, Prabir Purkayastha, on a petition filed by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that quashed money laundering proceedings against them.
The notice was issued on November 6, 2026, by a three-judge Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana. The ED has challenged the High Court's May 29 decision, which also quashed the First Information Report (FIR) registered by the Delhi Police's Economic Offences Wing (EOW).
The Supreme Court's action gives NewsClick and Purkayastha an opportunity to respond to the agency's appeal. It does not, at this stage, amount to a decision on whether the High Court judgment should be overturned.
Why Has the ED Approached the Supreme Court?
The ED has challenged the Delhi High Court's decision to quash the money laundering proceedings initiated against NewsClick and its founder under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA).
The High Court had also set aside the underlying EOW FIR, which formed part of the investigation into alleged irregularities involving foreign investments received by the digital news platform.
During the November 6 hearing, the ED's counsel reportedly informed the Supreme Court that Delhi Police was also preparing to challenge the High Court's decision concerning the EOW case.
The ED's appeal focuses on the legal consequences of the High Court's ruling for the money laundering investigation. The Supreme Court will consider the agency's challenge after receiving responses from the parties concerned.
What Were the Allegations Against NewsClick?
The investigation originated from allegations relating to foreign investments received by NewsClick in 2018 from a US-based entity named Worldwide Media Holdings LLC.
Investigators had alleged that the company was non-existent and raised questions about the source and structure of the investment. The allegations also included:
Suspected overvaluation of shares issued by NewsClick.
Alleged diversion of funds.
Questions concerning compliance with foreign direct investment regulations.
Possible irregularities in the handling of foreign investment proceeds.
These allegations formed the basis of the investigation into the platform's financial transactions and the subsequent money laundering proceedings.
In February 2021, the ED reportedly conducted searches at the residences and offices of Purkayastha and certain NewsClick employees. The searches continued for more than four days, according to the supplied report.
The investigation subsequently became the subject of legal challenges before the Delhi High Court.
What Did the Delhi High Court Decide?
In its judgment dated May 29, 2026, the Delhi High Court quashed the criminal proceedings arising from the allegations concerning NewsClick's foreign investments.
The court also set aside the EOW FIR and criticised the manner in which the investigation had been conducted.
According to the supplied report, the High Court considered the proceedings an abuse of power affecting free and impartial journalism. It rejected the ED's position concerning the existence of a scheduled offence and described the allegation as misconceived and baseless.
The judgment also characterised the investigation as a fishing and roving exercise, concluding that allowing the proceedings to continue would amount to an abuse of the legal process.
The High Court's decision formed the basis of the ED's subsequent appeal before the Supreme Court.
What Happens After the Supreme Court Notice?
The Supreme Court's notice requires NewsClick and Purkayastha to respond to the ED's challenge. Their submissions will allow the court to examine the arguments raised by the agency against the May 29 judgment.
The legal questions include whether the High Court was justified in quashing the underlying criminal proceedings and whether the consequential money laundering case should remain closed.
The reported possibility of a separate appeal by Delhi Police adds another dimension to the dispute, as it concerns the High Court's decision to quash the EOW FIR itself.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on the merits of the ED's petition. Its decision to seek responses should therefore be understood as a procedural step in the appellate process, rather than a reversal of the High Court judgment.
The case also highlights the legal relationship between an underlying criminal offence and proceedings under the PMLA. Shunyatax's strategic advisory services provide information on legal, financial and business-related advisory matters.
Further developments will depend on the responses filed by the parties and the Supreme Court's subsequent consideration of the appeal.