The Courts Speak: When Prosecution Becomes an 'Abuse of Process'

Two significant judicial outcomes involving NewsClick and the Missionaries of Charity highlight the limits of state intervention after years of protracted legal battles.

The corridors of the Delhi High Court and local trial courts have recently seen the culmination of two high-profile legal sagas that have gripped the nation for years. In a stinging rebuke to investigative agencies, the Delhi High Court quashed the FIR and the associated money laundering case against the digital news portal NewsClick, declaring the entire exercise an “abuse of process.” Simultaneously, a trial court acquitted all accused in the case involving the Missionaries of Charity, ending an eight-year ordeal that began with allegations of trafficking.

These cases underscore a recurring pattern: years of investigation, raids, and media scrutiny, only to be dismantled by the judiciary for a lack of evidence or procedural integrity. For NewsClick, the trouble started in 2020–2021 over allegations concerning foreign funding and compliance with Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) rules. The Enforcement Directorate (ED) launched a probe into claims that the portal had misrepresented funds, leading to high-stakes raids on the homes of journalists and the company’s offices.

The pressure intensified in October 2023 when founder-editor prabir purkayastha was arrested under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA). His detention became a flashpoint for press freedom debates until the Supreme Court intervened in 2024, citing significant procedural irregularities. Now, the High Court’s decision to quash the FIR marks a final legal closure, with the bench noting that the prosecution failed to establish a cognizable offence after nearly five years of litigation.

The Burden of Proof

In a separate courtroom, the Missionaries of Charity finally saw justice serve the accused. The case, which originated in 2018, centered on a nun and two others accused of facilitating illegal sales of newborns. The trial court’s acquittal was definitive; the judge ruled that the prosecution had failed to provide sufficient evidence to support claims of trafficking or coercion. After nearly a decade, the court found the allegations lacked the necessary burden of proof, effectively clearing those involved of the criminal charges that had shadowed their work for years.

Why it matters: The bigger picture

These rulings offer a sobering look at how state machinery interacts with civil society and the media. When investigations stretch for nearly a decade—as seen in the Missionaries of Charity matter—or rely on aggressive applications of laws like the UAPA, the "process" itself becomes a form of punishment. The judiciary’s intervention serves as a necessary check, reminding agencies that allegations must be backed by concrete evidence rather than conjecture or procedural maneuvering.

The broader implication here is the growing judicial scrutiny of how state agencies initiate and sustain cases. By labeling the NewsClick matter an “abuse of process,” the court has set a precedent that will likely be cited in future legal challenges involving foreign funding and institutional oversight. As these cases conclude, they leave behind a pertinent question for the investigative apparatus: what is the cost of a long-drawn-out case that ultimately fails to hold up under the light of judicial review?