Dr 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. FIR No. Place of Incident Time of Police Station No. Incident 1 FIR No. 113/2023 dated GT Road near 4th Bye 16:50 to Shibpur, 31.03.2023 @ 193/I Lane PM Basti 17:25 Howrah 2 FIR No. 114/2023 dated GT Road Near PM Basti 13:15 hrs Shibpur, 31.03.2023 @ 205/I 2nd Bye Land (Choti Howrah
Masjid) 3 FIR No. 78/2023 dated Dalkhola Underpass, 12:35 hrs to Dalkhola 30.03.2023 @ 297/I approx 2 km North West 16:35 hrs
from PS Dalkhola 4 FIR No.141/2023 dated Infront of Baro Masjid 19:45 hrs to Serampore 02.04.2023 @ 316/II Rishra 22:55 hrs 5 FIR No. 144/2023 dated In front of 4 no. Rail 20:05 hrs to Serampore 03.04.2023 @ 330/II Gate, LBS Road, PO 22:05 hrs NEETA SAPRA
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 the order of the High Court.
7 Section 6(1) of the NIA Act requires an officer in-charge of a police station to
forward a report to the State Government forthwith on the receipt of information
and the recording thereof under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
“relating to any scheduled offence”. The expression “relating to any scheduled
offence” is an expression of a broad amplitude. Sub-section (2) of Section 6
mandates that on receipt of a report under Section 6(1), the State Government
shall forward the report to the Central Government “as expeditiously as
possible”. Thereafter, in terms of sub-section (3), the Central Government has
to determine within a stipulated period on the basis of the information made
available by the State Government “or received from other sources”, whether
the offence is a scheduled offence or not and whether having regard to the
gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, it is a fit case to be
investigated by the agency. Upon forming such an opinion, the Central
Government is empowered under sub-section (4) to direct the NIA to investigate
the offence.
8 Sub-section (1) of Section 6 casts an affirmative obligation initially on the officer
in-charge of a police station to report to the State Government, on receipt of
information under Section 154 relating to any scheduled offence. Section 6(2)
casts a duty upon the State Government to forward the report to the Central
Government expeditiously. As regards the role of the Central Government, sub-
section (3) makes it abundantly clear that the formation of opinion on whether
the offence is a scheduled offence and whether the case is a fit case to be
investigated by the NIA having regard to the gravity of the offence, may be
based not only on the information which has been made available by the State
Government but also on such information as is received from other sources. 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.
9 The Central Government, in terms of its mandate, has to apply its mind to
whether firstly, the offence is a scheduled offence or not; and secondly, whether
having regard to the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, it is a fit
case to be investigaged by the NIA.
10 Independent of these provisions, sub-section (5) of Section 6 which is prefaced
by a non obstante provision empowers the Central Government to exercise a suo
moto power to direct the NIA to investigate an offence when it forms the opinion
that a scheduled offence has been committed which is required to be
investigated under the Act. Upon exercise of powers by the Central Government
either under sub-section (4) or sub-section (5), the State Government and any
police officer of the State Government investigating the offence would stand
restrained from proceeding with the investigation and are duty bound to transfer
the relevant documents and records to the NIA forthwith.
11 The directions of the High Court in the impugned order were rendered on 27
April 2023. Following this, on 8 May 2023, the Central Government issued a
notification in exercise of its power under Section 6(5). The notification which
has been issued by the Central Government makes a reference to the order
passed by the High Court but, having done so, it proceeds to expressly clarify
that the power was also being exercised in terms of the provisions of Section
6(5). Pursuant thereto, six FIRs were registered on 10 May 2023. Cognizance
has been taken by the Special Court on 11 May 2023. This sequence of events
which has been indicated in the submissions of Mr PS Patwalia, senior counsel
and as authenticated in the submission of the Solicitor General, is not in dispute.
Hence, as the matter stands, the NIA has exercised its jurisdiction specifically
with reference to its powers under Section 6(5).
12 At this stage, the Court is not called upon to either decide on the sufficiency of
the allegations or their veracity. 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.
13 The six FIRs which were registered by the State police authorities were all
between 30 March 2023 and 3 April 2023 and straddle four police stations. Of
them, two FIRs which have been recorded at Police Station Shibpur on 31 March
2023 relate to incidents which occurred on 31 March 2023 and are proximate in
time. Likewise, the same situation appears from the FIRs which have been
registered at Police Station Serampore on 2 April 2023 and 03 April 2023.
14 The precise contours of the investigation which should be carried out by the NIA
cannot be anticipated or restricted at this stage. Cognizance has also been
taken by the NIA Court.
15 There is no challenge to the validity of the notification which was issued under
Section 6(5).
16 Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave Petitions, though for
the reasons which have been indicated above.
17 We clarify 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.
For the above reasons, we affirm the judgment of the High Court.
18 The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
19 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
[Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud]
[J B Pardiwala]
[Manoj Misra] New Delhi; July 24, 2023 GKA
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.)No(s). 6283-6286/2023
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 27-04-2023 in WPA(P) No. 151/2023 27-04-2023 in WPA(P) No. 154/2023 27-04-2023 in WPA(P) No. 156/2023 27-04-2023 in WPA(P) No. 162/2023 passed by the High Court At Calcutta)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
SUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS. Respondent(s)
(IA No. 100165/2023 - EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IA No. 100166/2023 - PERMISSION TO FILE LENGTHY LIST OF DATES IA No. 117633/2023 - STAY APPLICATION)
Date : 24-07-2023 These matters were called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.B. PARDIWALA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ MISRA
For Petitioner(s) 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 Respondent(s) 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.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1 The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in terms of the signed reportable
judgment.
2 Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
(Signed reportable judgment is placed on the file)