Supreme Court Upholds NIA’s Power to Investigate Ram Navami Violence in West Bengal

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 24 July 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 647
Judges: Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, CJI, J B Pardiwala, J, Manoj Misra, J.

When can the National Investigation Agency (NIA) take over a case from the state police? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning violence during Ram Navami processions in West Bengal. The court examined the extent of the NIA’s powers under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, specifically focusing on whether the Central Government can direct the NIA to investigate a case based on its own assessment, even if the State Government has not requested it. The bench comprised of Chief Justice of India Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra. The judgment was authored by Chief Justice Dr. Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud.

Case Background

The case stems from a series of violent incidents that occurred during Ram Navami observances in West Bengal between March 30, 2023, and April 3, 2023. These incidents led to the registration of six First Information Reports (FIRs) across four different police stations. The incidents involved allegations of violence, including the use of explosives.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta, which led to the court’s order on April 27, 2023. The High Court determined that the allegations in the FIRs suggested offenses under the Explosive Substances Act. The High Court directed the transfer of the entire investigation to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), instructing the State police to hand over all FIRs, documents, seized materials, and CCTV footage to the NIA within two weeks. The High Court also directed the Central Government to exercise its powers under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court examined the provisions of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, which outlines the procedure for the investigation of scheduled offenses.

• Section 6(1) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, mandates that an officer in charge of a police station must report to the State Government any information related to a scheduled offense under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Act states, “relating to any scheduled offence”, which is interpreted broadly.
• Section 6(2) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, requires the State Government to forward this report to the Central Government “as expeditiously as possible.”
• Section 6(3) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, empowers the Central Government to determine, based on information from the State Government or other sources, whether the offense is a scheduled offense and if it should be investigated by the NIA.
• Section 6(4) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, allows the Central Government to direct the NIA to investigate the offense upon forming such an opinion.
• Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, grants the Central Government suo moto power to direct the NIA to investigate an offense if it believes a scheduled offense has been committed, irrespective of the State Government’s report. This section begins with a non-obstante clause, giving it overriding effect.

Arguments

The State of West Bengal, represented by Mr. Gopal Sankarnarayan, argued that:

• Six FIRs were registered for six different incidents across four dates.
• The High Court focused excessively on previous orders regarding NIA investigations.
• The High Court’s decision was based on two grounds: the alleged use of bombs in one FIR and the similar handwriting on seizure memos.
• The injuries sustained by the complainant were inconsistent with a bomb blast and that the seizure memos were prepared by different police officers.
• The State police had acted appropriately in response to the incidents.
• The transfer of the investigation to the NIA would demoralize the State police.

The Solicitor General of India, Mr. Tushar Mehta, representing the NIA, and the counsel for the original petitioners and intervenors supported the High Court’s order, arguing that the case warranted investigation by the NIA.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the central issue as:

1. Whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Central Government under Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, is extraneous to the powers conferred upon it so as to warrant the interference of the Supreme Court.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues:

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, affirming the NIA’s jurisdiction in the case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the legal framework outlined in the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, particularly Section 6(5), which empowers the Central Government to direct the NIA to investigate scheduled offenses. The Court emphasized the suo moto power of the Central Government and the fact that the Central Government had issued a notification under Section 6(5), which was not challenged. The court did not delve into the factual merits of the case or the allegations made by the State of West Bengal, focusing instead on the legal validity of the NIA’s jurisdiction.

The Court’s reasoning was based on the interpretation of the legal provisions, particularly Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. The Court did not delve into the factual allegations and focused on the legal validity of the Central Government’s action. The Court stated, “The remit of this Court would be to determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Central Government under Section 6(5) is extraneous to the powers conferred upon it by Section 6(5) so as to warrant the interference of this Court.” The Court also noted, “The power of the Central Government to refer an investigation to the NIA is not constrained to the report which is submitted by the State Government upon receipt of the initial report of the officer in-charge of the police station.” The Court clarified that, “the observations which were made by the High Court in the 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.”

Key Takeaways

• The Central Government has the power to direct the NIA to investigate a scheduled offense based on its own assessment, irrespective of the State Government’s report.
• Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, grants the Central Government suo moto power to direct the NIA to investigate a scheduled offense.
• The validity of a notification issued by the Central Government under Section 6(5) cannot be challenged unless there is a specific challenge to the notification itself.
• The Supreme Court will not delve into the factual merits of a case when determining the validity of the NIA’s jurisdiction.

Directions

The Supreme Court clarified that the observations made by the High Court were confined to the question of the validity of the NIA’s jurisdiction under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There was no specific amendment discussed in the judgment.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the Central Government has the power to direct the NIA to investigate a scheduled offense based on its own assessment, irrespective of the State Government’s report, as per Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. This judgment reinforces the independent power of the Central Government to initiate NIA investigations, even without the State Government’s request.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to transfer the investigation of the Ram Navami violence in West Bengal to the NIA. The Court affirmed the Central Government’s power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, to direct the NIA to investigate a scheduled offense based on its own assessment. The judgment clarifies the extent of the NIA’s jurisdiction and reinforces the Central Government’s authority in initiating investigations of scheduled offenses.