Ram Navami violence: SC Bengal appeal against HC order on handing inquiry to NIA

The bench, also comprising Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, also pointed out that after the HC’s directions, the Centre had issued a notification on May 8, 2023, in exercise of this suo motu power under Section 6(5) of NIA Act.

The bench said the Centre’s notification makes a reference to the HC order, but having done so, seeks to expressly clarify that the power was also being exercised by the government in terms of Section 6(5). Thus, the apex court noted, as the matter stands, the NIA has exercised its jurisdiction specifically with reference to its powers under Section 6(5) of NIA Act.

The bench said that “at this stage”, it is “not called upon to either decide on the sufficiency of the allegations or the veracity”. The court said that its remit would only be to determine as to whether exercise of its discretion by the Union government under Section 6(5) is so completely extraneous to the powers conferred upon it by Section 6(5) to warrant the court’s intervention.

Refusing to interfere with the HC order, the Supreme Court said the “contours of the investigation which should be carried out by the NIA cannot be anticipated or restricted at this stage”.

Acting on a PIL, a division bench of Calcutta HC had held that in the backdrop of the allegations implicating the commission of alleged offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act, it is “a fit case where the entire investigation should be transferred to the NIA with a direction to the Central government to exercise their power under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act, 2008”.

The HC also directed that all FIRs, documents, materials seized and CCTV footage, among others, be “immediately handed over…to…NIA”, and that the agency, on receiving these materials, “shall commence investigation and proceed in accordance with law”.

While the petitioners alleged that bombs were thrown at the rally, the state government took the stand that a police probe had not found use of any bomb, and that the complainants may have mistaken teargas shells to be bombs.

The State said police had acted in pursuance of the incidents and thus the HC’s direction is not warranted and would demoralise police authorities.