ORDER :

The petitioners have filed this Habeas Corpus Petition praying therein that the custody of the petitioners be declared as illegal and they be set at liberty.

2. In the petition, the petitioners have pleaded that an FIR No.RC-41/2022/ NIA /DLI dated 19.09.2022 was registered at Police Station, NIA , New Delhi under Sections 120-B and 153-A of IPC and Sections 13 and 18 of UA(P)A, 1967 is illegal and without any jurisdiction. The said FIR was registered after receipt of an order bearing number F.No.11011/83/2022/ NIA dated 16.09.2022 from respondent No.1 i.e. under Secretary to the Ministry of Home Affairs, Union of India, which order was passed under Section 6 (5) of the National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the NIA Act"). The petitioners were arrested in connection with the impugned FIR from Kerala where they were attending organizational meeting conducted by the Popular Front of India (hereinafter referred to as "the PFI").

3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that the respondents had no statutory power or constitutional power to pass any order under Section 6 (3) of the NIA Act as law and order is the State subject and the power conferred to the Union of India is under union list of Entry No.8 i.e. Central Intelligence Bureau and Investigation. It is also contended that the respondents have misconceived their power under non-obstante clause under Section 6 (5) of the NIA Act, which only prevails over the scheduled offences. It is further contended that only direction to investigate can be given when an FIR is registered under Section 154 of Cr.P.C. and the National Investigating Agency had no jurisdiction to register an FIR at Delhi. It is also argued that it is only the State that can notify a Police Station under the provisions of Cr.P.C. and the NIA had no jurisdiction to register an FIR at Delhi.

4. It is also argued by the counsel for the petitioners that throughout the territory of India, FIRs in relation to offences under the NIA Act are being registered at the Police Stations, which do not have the power to register the FIR. My attention has been drawn to the various documents where FIR has been registered by such Police Stations. My attention has also been drawn to certain notifications issued by the State Government for establishment of NIA Police Station(s). Counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on Priyanka Srivastava & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors.: (2015) 4 AD(SC) 242, Pragyasingh Chandrapal Singh Thakur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors.: (2014) 1 BomCR (Cri) 135 and i.

5. Reply to petition has been filed on behalf of the respondent - Union of India. It is contended by the counsel for the respondent - Union of India that the FIR has been registered at Police Station, NIA , New Delhi and the petitioners without availing remedies have preferred this Habeas Corpus Petition. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the registration of the FIR, the proper course available to them is to file a petition for quashing of the said FIR. It is argued that after the arrest of the petitioners, they were given remand by the Court and a judicial order has been passed by the Court extending the judicial custody. The petitioners are thus in judicial custody in accordance with the directions of the Court and cannot be said to be in illegal detention so as to exercise writ jurisdiction. It is also argued that the petitioners are in judicial custody and under the supervision of the learned Special Judge, NIA , Jaipur and therefore, are not in illegal detention of NIA .

6. It