ED Flags ₹92.33 Crore Funding Allegations Against Newsclick

The Enforcement Directorate (ED) has told the Supreme Court that Newsclick received funds worth ₹92.33 crore through transactions allegedly involving violations of India’s foreign exchange regulations, raising fresh questions about the digital news portal’s overseas funding and its reported links to US-based businessman Neville Roy Singham. The agency has challenged a Delhi High Court judgment that quashed the money-laundering proceedings against the organisation and its founder, Prabir Purkayastha. The allegations remain contested, and the Supreme Court will consider the legal challenge before reaching any conclusion.

According to the ED’s submissions, the disputed amount comprises ₹9.59 crore received as foreign direct investment (FDI) and ₹82.63 crore recorded as receipts for software and other services allegedly not provided in the manner claimed. The agency contends that the transactions were structured to bypass regulatory restrictions governing foreign investment in digital news media. It has argued that the financial arrangements must be examined alongside communications and agreements involving foreign entities allegedly connected to Singham.

The funding controversy centres on how the money entered India, how the transactions were classified and whether the arrangements complied with applicable regulations. The ED alleges that the company received foreign investment through an arrangement involving Worldwide Media Holdings LLC, a US-based entity, in 2018. It has questioned the valuation of the shares issued during the transaction and alleged that the structure circumvented restrictions applicable to foreign investment in digital news organisations.

The agency has also scrutinised payments described as earnings from exported services. According to its investigation, Newsclick received ₹82.63 crore from overseas entities under agreements relating to software, research, information services and other activities. The ED alleges that these receipts lacked sufficient evidence of genuine commercial services corresponding to the payments. It argues that the transactions may have served as an alternative route for bringing foreign funds into the organisation without complying with the regulatory framework governing investments in news media.

At the centre of the broader investigation is Neville Roy Singham, an American businessman based in Shanghai who has been linked by investigators to a network of overseas organisations and funding arrangements. The ED alleges that Singham played a role in financing the portal and that communications between him, Purkayastha and other individuals are relevant to understanding the purpose and management of the transactions. The agency has characterised the alleged arrangement as part of a wider effort to influence public discourse in India.

The ED has further alleged that the funds supported content and activities it considers adverse to Indian interests. It has pointed to the portal’s reporting on the COVID-19 pandemic, the farmers’ protests against the now-repealed farm laws and developments concerning Kashmir. The agency has also cited communications relating to China and Chinese-produced films as material supporting its claims. However, allegations about editorial influence or political intent must be distinguished from established judicial findings, and the content of a news organisation’s reporting alone does not establish criminal conduct.

The legal dispute took a significant turn in May 2026, when the Delhi High Court quashed the underlying Economic Offences Wing FIR and the related money-laundering proceedings. The court concluded that the allegations did not establish the essential ingredients of offences such as cheating, criminal breach of trust and criminal conspiracy. The ED has now approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court failed to adequately consider important material and prematurely assessed issues that should have been examined during the investigation.

In its appeal, the agency has also raised concerns about procedural restrictions that it says impeded the investigation. It has referred to an interim order issued in June 2021 that restricted coercive action and argued that pending applications concerning the order limited its ability to conduct a comprehensive inquiry. The ED maintains that the High Court should have assessed whether the allegations justified further investigation rather than effectively determining disputed factual questions at an early stage.

The financial proceedings have also produced substantial penalties under foreign exchange regulations. According to reports on the investigation, the adjudicating authority imposed penalties of ₹120 crore on PPK Newsclick Studio Private Limited and ₹64 crore on Purkayastha. Both have challenged the penalties before the appellate tribunal, and those proceedings remain separate from the Supreme Court challenge concerning the quashed criminal cases.

For Newsclick, the immediate issue is whether the ED can persuade the Supreme Court to overturn the High Court’s decision and revive the proceedings. The case also raises broader questions about transparency in overseas funding, the classification of payments received by digital media companies and the limits of judicial intervention during an ongoing investigation.

The allegations against the portal and its founder have not been conclusively established as criminal guilt. The Supreme Court’s consideration of the ED’s appeal will determine whether the challenged proceedings can continue. Until the legal issues are resolved, the distinction between an investigating agency’s claims and findings established by a court remains essential to understanding the case.