.jpg)
The West Bengal government's challenge to an NIA investigation into riots in Beldanga in Murshidabad last month was being heard by the court.
The National Investigation Agency's (NIA) use of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to support its investigation into the recent violence at Beldanga, West Bengal, was called into doubt by the Supreme Court on Wednesday.
According to the NIA, the violence violated Section 15 of the UAPA because it had impacted India's economic security.
Justices Joymalya Bagchi and Vipul M. Pancholi, together with Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant, observed that the State of West Bengal had not yet turned over the case files so that the NIA could reach this determination.You claimed that Section 15 UAPA was justified without consulting any supporting documentation. This was a pre-decisional conclusion reached; the case diary was not shown to you.Justice Bagchi warned the NIA's lawyers, "Not every emotional outburst can be framed as a threat to economic security."
The Court also pointed out that comparable acts of violence occurred in April 2025. The High Court noted that the NIA is free to look into the case, but the agency took a while to do so.This type of violence occurred in April 2025, and the state government consented to an NIA investigation. The bench of the High Court division asked NIA to check if an investigation could be carried out. However, NIA slept over it," Justice Bagchi remarked.
The West Bengal government's appeal to an NIA investigation into violence that occurred in January at Beldanga in Murshidabad was being heard by the court.
The violence reportedly started after 30-year-old Alauddin Sheikh, a resident of Sujapur Kumarpur in Murshidabad, had his body transported from Jharkhand to his hometown in West Bengal. It is said that Sheikh was killed in the neighboring state.
At least thirty persons were arrested by the police after the violence, and four First Information Reports (FIRs) were filed. In addition to blocking the national route, the demonstrators assaulted a news reporter.
In order to stop violence from happening again, the Calcutta High Court ordered the State government to use central armed police personnel in the region on January 20. Suvendu Adhikari, a leader of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), pleaded for the directives to be issued. The Central government may choose to look into an NIA probe into the occurrence, the High Court added.
As a result, the NIA started looking into the situation.
The West Bengal government contested this in two petitions before the Supreme Court: one contested an order issued by the Union Home Ministry on January 28 ordering an NIA investigation, and the other contested the High Court's judgment allowing the NIA to investigate the subject.
After reviewing the NIA's analysis of the case in a report that must be delivered in a sealed cover, the Court today concluded that it was best if the Calcutta High Court handled the matter itself.Return to the High Court and request a review," Justice Bagchi said.Whether or not UAPA should be used...CJI Kant added, "We will request that NIA submit a report on this to the High Court in sealed cover."
Speaking to the State's attorney, Justice Bagchi stated, "You could argue that there was no aim to compromise economic security and that no explosives were used. You can inform the High Court that NIA misused its authority.
Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju, speaking on behalf of the NIA, insisted that there was enough justification for an investigation. Additionally, he objected to the State's tardiness in releasing case files.This border is permeable and close to Bangladesh. Deadly weapons were utilized, and there was mayhem.They are not giving us probe papers; we are doing our own investigation. "Please tell them to do that," he protested.
In the end, the court mandated that the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court hear the case. In a sealed cover, the NIA was required to report to the High Court on the status of its investigation and state whether there was a strong enough basis for a follow-up investigation.We ask that the High Court take the NIA report into consideration on its own and make conclusions in light of the passing remarks in the January 20 order that lack documentary support.It is made clear that we have not made any observations regarding the case's merits. The Court further ordered that a Division Bench led by the Chief Justice of the High Court, who is also the person who heard the previous plea, hear West Bengal's plea.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Banerjee, speaking on behalf of the West Bengal government, also charged the NIA with selective action as the hearing came to an end."The NIA is active only in West Bengal," he declared.
ASG Raju responded quickly, saying,Regretfully, everyone is aware of what is taking place there.
This website is all about sharing knowledge and updating everything about Law.
