Supreme Court pulls up NIA, says every emotional outburst is not economic threat

New Delhi: In a sharp but conversational rebuke to the National Investigation Agency, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said that “every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as affecting economic security” as it questioned whether it was fair and legally sound to brand the January violence in West Bengal’s Beldanga as a “terrorist act” under the stringent Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act without first examining the case records, while simultaneously directing the agency to justify its stance before the Calcutta High Court in a sealed report. A bench led by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi did not rule on the merits of the dispute itself but set the stage for a fresh judicial assessment by the High Court, asking it to independently decide whether the UAPA invocation was warranted.

Disposing of two appeals filed by the West Bengal government, the Supreme Court directed the NIA to submit a confidential status report to the Calcutta High Court either during or after its ongoing probe, specifically addressing whether there is prima facie material to make out a case under Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA, which deals with terrorist acts. The court also told the State government to pursue its objections to the NIA investigation before the High Court, where related proceedings are already pending, and asked the High Court to pass consequential orders after considering the agency’s report.

The case arises from unrest in Beldanga, Murshidabad district, on January 16, triggered by the death of a local resident working as a migrant labourer in Jharkhand. Large numbers of people took to the streets, blocking railway tracks and National Highway 12 for several hours. Clashes followed, leaving at least 12 people injured and leading to the arrest of around 30 individuals accused of inciting violence. On January 17 morning, similar blockades were reported over the alleged heckling of another Murshidabad resident employed as a migrant worker in Bihar.

Responding to petitions filed by BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari and others, the Calcutta High Court on January 20 expressed concern over repeated incidents of unrest in Murshidabad. It directed local police and administration to maintain peace, allowed the State to requisition central forces if required, and left it open to the Union government to consider an NIA probe under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act after examining State reports.

Acting on this, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs directed the NIA to take over the investigation of the case originally registered by Beldanga police under several laws, including the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, the National Highways Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act. While the direction was dated January 26 in one set of records, it was formally recorded as January 28 in another. The NIA subsequently invoked Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA, which applies to acts committed with intent to threaten the unity, integrity, security, economic security, or sovereignty of India, particularly when “bombs, dynamite or other explosive substances or inflammable substances or firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous or noxious gases” are used.

During Wednesday’s hearing, Justice Bagchi closely questioned this decision. “Is it just and fair to exercise your powers like that? The case diary and other documents were not placed before you. It is a pre-decisional conclusion arrived at without looking at any material, and you say Section 15 of UAPA is applicable?” he asked Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the NIA.

The bench noted that when the agency decided to apply UAPA, the state police had not yet handed over the case diary or relevant records. “Without looking into the documents, you have said Section 15 of UAPA is justified… Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security,” the court said.

Justice Bagchi further observed that the NIA must examine whether the violence represented an “impromptu expression” of public anguish rather than an act intended to cause economic insecurity. The Bench indicated that, in light of these concerns, the High Court may need to re-examine its earlier directions.

Raju defended the NIA’s position, arguing that the Beldanga incident was not an isolated occurrence in West Bengal. He told the court that petroleum had been used during the violence and that members of a particular community were targeted. He also pointed to Beldanga’s proximity to the Bangladesh border, describing it as a porous frontier, and said the state police had a statutory obligation to share investigation materials with the NIA. “We are doing an independent investigation… They are not handing over the probe papers to us. Please direct them to do so,” he submitted.

The court did not issue such a direction at this stage but ordered the NIA to place its findings before the High Court in a sealed cover after or during its probe, specifically addressing whether UAPA could be prima facie attracted.

Referring to earlier disturbances in April 2025, Justice Bagchi remarked that although the High Court had then permitted the NIA to consider taking up the matter, the agency did not act promptly. “In April 2025, we saw this kind of violence and the state government also agreed. The high court’s division bench asked the NIA to see if a probe can be conducted. But then, the NIA slept over it,” he said.

Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, representing West Bengal along with advocate Kunal Mimani, maintained that there was no material to invoke Section 15 of the UAPA and that none of the scheduled offences under the Act had been committed in this case. He also accused the NIA of selective action in West Bengal, a charge Raju rejected, saying, “Sorry to say, it is well known what is happening there.”

Clarifying its stance, the Supreme Court said it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the dispute. It asked a division bench of the Calcutta High Court headed by its Chief Justice to consider the NIA’s sealed report and decide both on the validity of the UAPA invocation and on the State’s challenge to the January 20 High Court order and the Centre’s decision to order an NIA investigation.with agency inputs