NewsClick founder Prabir Purkayastha and human resources head Amit Chakraborty moved the Supreme Court on Monday challenging the Delhi High Court’s judgement upholding their arrest in a case under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, Live Law reported.

They were arrested on October 3 after the Delhi Police raided several journalists associated with NewsClick following allegations that the news organisation received money to spread Chinese propaganda. A city court first remanded them to police custody for seven days and subsequently to judicial custody for 10 days.

On Monday, Senior Advocate Kapil Sibal, representing Purkayastha and Chakraborty, requested a bench headed by Chief Justice DY Chandrachud for an urgent hearing. The chief justice asked Sibal to circulate the papers and said he will decide on listing the matter.

The Delhi High Court had upheld their arrest and remand on Friday, saying that the police had not violated legal or constitutional procedures.

Purkayastha and Chakraborty had contended before the High Court that they were not provided with grounds of arrest in writing and therefore, the Delhi Police had violated the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Pankaj Bansal vs Union of India & Others case.

However, High Court Justice Tushar Rao Gedela ruled that the Supreme Court’s judgement was in a case under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act and it does not apply to cases under the country’s anti-terror law.

In the first information report registered on August 17, the police accused NewsClick of taking funds from China in a “circuitous and camouflaged manner” to disrupt India’s sovereignty.

The case was filed after The New York Times alleged in an August 5 report that the Indian news website had received money from American businessman Neville Roy Singham, who worked closely with the “Chinese government media machine” to spread its propaganda. The FIR describes Singham as an active member of the propaganda department of the Communist Party of China.

NewsClick has denied these allegations, calling them “untenable and bogus”.

Also read: SC ruling on providing grounds for arrest in writing isn’t applicable to UAPA cases, says Delhi HC