Back
2023 Supreme(SC) 669
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI., J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA, JJ.
The State of West Bengal & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Suvendu Adhikari & Ors. - Respondents
Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 6283-6286 of 2023
Decided On : 24-07-2023
For the Petitioner: Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Adv., Mr. Sanjay Basu, Adv., Mr. Amit Bhandari, Adv., Mr. Nipun Saxena, Adv., Mr. Srisatya Mohanty, Adv., Ms. Aditi Gupta, Adv., Ms. Anju Thomas, Adv., Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Adv., Ms. Mantika Haryani, Adv., Mr. Shreyas Awasthi, Adv., Mr. Himanshu Chakravarty, Adv., Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari, Adv., Mr. Bhanu Mishra, Adv., Ms. Muskan Surana, Adv., Mr. Saransh Bhardwaj, Adv., Mr. Archit Adlakha, Adv., Ms. Soumya Saxena, Adv., Mr. Aditya Raj Pandey, Adv., Ms. Astha Sharma, AOR.
For the Respondent: Mr. Pranab Prakash, AOR, Mr. Abhishek Sarkar, Adv., Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Kotwal, Adv., Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv., Mr. Tejasvi Gupta, Adv., Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Rahul Sharma, Adv., Mr. Nirnimesh Dube, AOR, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, Mr. Kanu Agarwal, Adv., Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv., Mr. Ashok Panigrahi, Adv., Ms. Sansriti Pathak, Adv., Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR, Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv., Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Adv., Mr. Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR, Ms. Ana Upadhyay, Adv., Ms. Manya Hasija, Adv., Mr. Nihar Dharmadhikari, Adv., Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Adv., Mr. Lokenath Chatterjee, Adv.
IMPORTANT POINT
Power of Central Government to refer an investigation to NIA is not constrained to report which is submitted by State Government upon receipt of initial report of officer in-charge of police station.
Headnote:
National Investigating Agency Act 2008 – Section 6(5) – NIA investigation into violence in State of West Bengal – Power of Central Government to refer an investigation to NIA is not constrained to report which is submitted by State Government upon receipt of initial report of officer in-charge of police station – Central Government, in terms of its mandate, has to apply its mind to whether firstly, offence is a scheduled offence or not; and secondly, whether having regard to gravity of offence and other relevant factors, it is a fit case to be investigated by NIA – Section 6(5) empowers Central Government to exercise a suo motu power to direct NIA to investigate an offence when it forms opinion that a scheduled offence has been committed which is required to be investigated under the Act – Precise contours of investigation which should be carried out by NIA cannot be anticipated or restricted at this stage – Cognizance has also been taken by NIA Court – There is no challenge to validity of notification which was issued under Section 6(5) – Court not inclined to entertain Special Leave Petitions – Judgment of High Court affirmed. (Paras 8, 9, 10, 14, 15 and 16)
Facts of the case:
Acting on a Public Interest Litigation, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta by its order dated 27th April 2023 held that the allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act. Hence, tHigh Court held that this is a fit case where entire investigation should be transferred to the National Investigation Agency with a direction to the Central Government to exercise their power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008.
Findings of Court:
Observations which were made by the High Court in impugned order would be confined to the question as to whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the NIA under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is valid.
Result : Special Leave Petitions disposed of with observations.
JUDGMENT :
Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, CJI.
1. Six first information reports were registered by the Police in the State of West Bengal. Details of these first information reports have been tabulated in a statement which has been furnished by the State of West Bengal :
| S. No. | FIR No. | Place of Incident | Time of Incident | Police Station |
| 1. | FIR No. 113/2023 dated 31.03.2023 @ 193/I | GT Road near 4th Bye Lane PM Basti | 16:50 to 17:25 | Shibpur, Howrah |
| 2. | FIR No. 114/2023 dated 31.03.2023 @ 205/I | GT Road Near PM Basti 2 nd Bye Land (Choti Masjid) | 13:15 hrs | Shibpur, Howrah |
| 3. | FIR No. 78/2023 dated 30.03.2023 @ 297/I | Dalkhola Underpass, approx 2 km North West from PS Dalkhola | 12:35 hrs to 16:35 hrs | Dalkhola |
| 4. | FIR No. 141/2023 dated 02.04.2023 @ 316/II | In front of Baro Masjid Rishra | 19:45 hrs to 22:55 hrs | Serampore |
| 5. | FIR No. 144/2023 dated 03.04.2023 @ 330/II | In front of 4 no. Rail Gate, LBS Road, PO Rishra | 20:05 hrs to 22:05 hrs | Serampore |
| 6. | FIR No. 48/2023 dated 03.04.2023 @ 334/I | NS Road area Kali Mandir PO | 12:10 hrs. | Rishra |
2. Acting on a Public Interest Litigation, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta by its order dated 27 April 2023 held that the allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive Substances Act. Hence, the High Court held that this is a fit case where the entire investigation should be transferred to the National Investigation Agency with a direction to the Central Government to exercise their power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008.
3. The proceedings were thus disposed of by the High Court by directing the State police to ensure that all the FIRs, documents, material seized and CCTV footage, among other things, should be immediately handed over to the NIA which shall commence investigation and proceed in accordance with law. The police authorities of the State of West Bengal were directed to hand over all material to the NIA within two weeks.
4. During the course of hearing, we have heard Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal, Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the NIA, Mr. PS Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioner before the High Court and Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, counsel appearing on behalf of an intervenor who had filed a complaint arising out of the incidents in question.
5. The principal submissions which have been urged on behalf of the petitioners are :
(i) Six FIRs were registered by the police in relation to six different incidents spanning four distinct dates;
(ii) The High Court has dwelt at considerable length on the previous orders which it passed for transfer of investigations to the NIA;
(iii) Two grounds have weighed with the High Court :
(a) FIR 141 of 2023 dated 02 April 2023 contains allegations about the alleged use of bombs; and
(b) All four seizure memos appear to be in the same handwriting.
(iv) As regards (a) above, the injuries sustained by the injured complainant indicate only abrasions which are inconsistent with such an incident. As regards (b) above, seven different police officers had carried out the investigation involving, inter alia, the preparation of the seizure memos;
(v) The police authorities in the State of West Bengal have duly acted in pursuance of the alleged incidents which took place during the course of the Ram Navami observances in the State; and
(vi) The direction by the High Court for the transfer of investigation to the NIA is not warranted and would demoralise the police in conducting investigation in accordance with law.
6. On the other hand, the Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf of the NIA and the counsel appearing on behalf of the original petitioners and the intervenors supported
