New Delhi: To allow the Delhi police’s foreign investment case against Newsclick to proceed would entail a “gross abuse of the process of law”, while the Enforcement Directorate (ED)’s resulting proceedings consist of “bald assertions” that do not “even remotely” point to an offence, the Delhi high court has ruled, quashing both cases against the outlet.High court Justice Neena Bansal Krishna’s verdict dismantling the Modi government-run agencies’ cases caps the almost six-year-long proceedings against the independent news house that media bodies and journalists have condemned as an attack on press freedom. She pronounced her judgment on May 29 but it was made available on Wednesday (June 10).Dealing with the Delhi police economic offences wing (EOW)’s August 2020 case alleging that Newsclick tried to violate foreign direct investment rules, and invoking provisions pertaining to cheating and criminal breach of trust, the court held that “the continuation of such [an] FIR is nothing but a gross abuse of the process of law”.Although the Delhi police alleged that Newsclick‘s eponymous publisher attempted to violate a foreign direct investment cap in a 2018 share sale, the court noted that at the time the ceiling did not apply to digital news publishers – a fact the outlet had confirmed with the government prior to receiving the inflow.Next, the police flagged that a loss-making Newsclick “siphoned off” the foreign investment it received in order to pay “excessive” amounts of salaries, fees and rent – which, per the EOW, showed the inflows were “intended to make the payments for ulterior motives, clandestinely” – but the court noted that even if a company incurs inordinate expenditure, this “does not disclose any criminal offence”.As for the police’s claim that the $1.5 million foreign inflow came from a Delaware-based firm that had ceased to exist over a year before the transaction occurred, the court noted that the company that made the investment in Newsclick had recycled a defunct entity’s name as is allowed by local laws.Cheating entails that someone is deceived into delivering their property but in this case no entity, including the US firm that bought Newsclick‘s shares, had complained or was found to have been cheated by the outlet, Justice Krishna said. The complainant, one Sobhan Singh, was an informant and not an aggrieved party.“By the same logic,” the judge said of the criminal breach of trust charge, “there is neither any person who has claimed to have entrusted a property or that it has been misappropriated by the petitioner [Newsclick].”Coming to the ED’s September 2020 money laundering case, the court noted that while the agency was relying on the criminal conspiracy charge in the EOW’s FIR, “on what basis the criminal conspiracy is being alleged is not explained, except that [Newsclick founder-editor] Prabir Purkayastha and Jason Pfetcher had entered into an agreement”.“Merely because the parties entered into an agreement is not sufficient to constitute criminal conspiracy,” Justice Krishna said.In fact, “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 [Prevention of Money Laundering Act].”The EOW and the ED’s cases were not the only high-profile proceedings against Newsclick. In October 2023 the Delhi police arrested Purkayastha – in addition to raiding employees across the news house’s chain of command and even contributors – in connection with an Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act case and allegations of dubious foreign funding.Seven months later the Supreme Court ruled that Purkayastha’s arrest was illegal.