The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Central Government to decide within one week whether the National Investigation Agency should assume control of the ongoing investigation into the recent violence at Lovely Professional University. The Bench comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor issued the directive following reports that the Punjab Police has invoked Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, which pertains to cyber-terrorism, in connection with the unrest that disrupted campus life in late September.

The court’s intervention follows a Public Interest Litigation filed by an individual student, seeking a more robust investigation into the circumstances surrounding the campus violence. The petitioner originally requested that the case be transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation under the court's direct supervision. However, the discovery of potential cyber-terrorism elements during the police investigation has shifted the focus toward the statutory framework governing the National Investigation Agency under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

Shifting Investigation Scope Amid Rising Cyber-Terrorism Allegations

The violence at Lovely Professional University originated on the night of September 26, 2026, fueled by the widespread circulation of unverified rumors across social media platforms. According to the petition, a Reddit post began circulating among the student body, alleging a grave incident of sexual violence against a student, followed by claims of university suppression and a subsequent suicide. These allegations incited significant unrest on campus, prompting police intervention and the initiation of multiple investigations.

As the state authorities progressed with their inquiries, they filed status reports with the High Court detailing the steps taken to identify the sources of the misinformation and the perpetrators of the violence. During these proceedings, it emerged that the investigators had uncovered material sufficient to prima facie implicate Section 66F of the Information Technology Act. This specific legislative provision is designed to address acts of cyber-terrorism, and its inclusion in the police records marked a significant escalation in the gravity of the legal proceedings.

Statutory Obligations and Federal Oversight Protocols

The legal significance of incorporating Section 66F lies in its status as a “scheduled offence” under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The petitioner’s legal team argued that once an investigation involves a scheduled offence, the procedural requirements outlined in the 2008 Act are triggered, necessitating mandatory federal involvement.

Counsel for the petitioner drew the court's attention to Section 6 of the Act, which delineates the process for handling such cases. According to the court's analysis of the provision, “On receipt of a report under section 154(1) with regard to commissioning of a scheduled offence, the State Government is required to forward the report to the Central Government as expeditiously as possible.”

The court observed that the affidavit submitted by the State of Punjab failed to demonstrate that the administration had adequately aligned its investigative actions with the strictures of the 2008 Act. The High Court noted that the legislative intent behind the NIA Act is to ensure that cases of high sensitivity, such as cyber-terrorism, are subjected to specialized federal scrutiny to determine if they warrant investigation by the national agency. Consequently, the judiciary emphasized that the decision-making process must follow the protocol prescribed by the legislature, rather than remaining exclusively within the purview of the state police.

Procedural Mandates for Timely Administrative Action

To resolve the procedural impasse, the High Court issued specific, time-bound instructions to the state and central authorities. The Punjab Government is now mandated to forward the full report concerning the scheduled offence to the Central Government within a 72-hour window. Upon receipt of this documentation, the Central Government is directed to evaluate the material and determine, within one week, whether the case meets the criteria for transfer to the National Investigation Agency.

The court stressed the urgency of the situation, noting, “It goes without saying that considering the sensitivity of the issue raised, the concerned investigating agency must deal with the matter with all promptness and seriousness.”

This directive effectively pauses the current investigative uncertainty. While the state police are permitted to continue their efforts until a formal federal decision is made, the ultimate authority now rests with the Union to decide whether the investigation requires the specialized capabilities of the NIA. The court has retained jurisdiction over the matter and has listed the case for further hearing on November 17, 2026. By that date, the authorities are expected to update the Bench on the steps taken and any decisions reached regarding the transfer of the investigation. This timeline underscores the judiciary’s intent to balance the need for a thorough criminal inquiry with the necessity of adhering to federal mandates when offenses of a national security nature are alleged. As the matter proceeds, the focus remains on ensuring that the truth behind the campus unrest is uncovered through a transparent and legally compliant process that satisfies both public and institutional interests.