The State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Suvendu Adhikari & Ors.
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 :
2. Acting on a Public Interest Litigation, a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta by its order dated 27 Apr il 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
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SUVENDU ADHIKARI &
ORS.
power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008.
3. The proceedings were thus disposed of by the High Court b y
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 G opal
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 inj ured
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
845
(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 a s 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 ha ving
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 op inion,
the Central Government is empowered under sub-section (4) t o direct
the NIA to investigate the offence.
8. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 casts an affirmative obl igation
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 Gover nment
but also on such information as is received from other sour ces. 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-char ge of the police
station.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SUVENDU ADHIKARI &
ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]
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. U pon
exercise of powers by the Central Government either under sub-section
(4) or sub-section (5), the State Government and any polic e officer of
the State Government investigating the offence would stand restrained
from proceeding with the investigation and are duty bound to t ransfer
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 take n
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 p owers
conferred upon it by Section 6(5) so as to warrant the inter ference of
this Court.
13. The six FIRs which were registered by the State pol ice
authorities were all between 30 March 2023 and 3 April 2023 and straddle
four police stations. Of them, two FIRs which have been re corded at
Police Station Shibpur on 31 March 2023 relate to incidents which
847
occurred on 31 March 2023 and are proximate in time. Likewise, the
same situation appears from the FIRs which have been regi stered 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 t he
High Court in the impugned order would be confined to the question as
to whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the NIA under t he 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.
Ankit Gyan SLPs disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SUVENDU ADHIKARI &
ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]