Supreme Court: In a petition challenging an interlocutory order dated 20-1-2026 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court (‘High Court’), containing various directions, including leaving it open for the Central Government to decide on handing over the investigation under Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the Division Bench of Surya Kant, CJ and Joymala Bagchi, J., directed the National Investigating Agency (‘NIA’) to submit a report to the High Court stating whether a prima facie case exists for applying Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (‘UAPA’). Since the High Court’s order only made brief remarks without a clear view, the Court asked it to independently assess the NIA’s report after hearing the parties. It clarified that the final decision on applying UAPA rests with the High Court.
In its impugned order, the High Court noted that the Government of India, through the Ministry of Home Affairs, had on 28-1-2026 directed the NIA to take over the investigation of a FIR registered by the West Bengal Police at Beldanga Police Station, Murshidabad. The FIR was filed under the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1972, the National Highway Act, 1956, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, among others. However, senior counsel for the State of West Bengal argued that even without any investigation by the NIA or supporting material, the Government of India’s order itself states that the allegations in the FIR fall under Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA.
The Court, without giving any opinion on the merits, directed the NIA to submit its report either after completing the investigation or during its progress before the Division Bench of the High Court. The report should state whether, based on the material collected, there is a prima facie case for applying UAPA provisions. Since the High Court’s order only contains brief remarks without a clear opinion on whether the said Act applies, the Court asked the High Court to independently consider the NIA’s report after hearing the parties. The Court also clarified that the decision on whether UAPA provisions are attracted will be decided by the High Court.
[State of W.B. v. Suvendu Adhikari, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 196, decided on 11-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Kalyan Bandopadhyay, Sr. Adv. ; Kunal Mimani, AOR ; Sirsanya Bandopadhyay, Adv. ; Parag Chaturvedi, Adv.; Arka Kumar Nag, Adv.
For the Respondent: P.S. Patwalia, Sr. Adv.; Billwadal Bhattacharya, Sr. Adv.; Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, AOR; Ana Upadhyay, Adv.; Manya Hasija, Adv.; Anish Kr. Mukherjee, Adv.; T.illayarasu, Adv.; Saurabh Guha, Adv.; Shubhansh Patel, Adv.; Poddar, Adv.; Mani Aneja, Adv.; Suryaneel Das, Adv.; Chiranjit Pal, Adv.; Megha Datta, Adv.; Tamoghna Pramanick, Adv.; S.V. Raju, ASG; Aman V., Adv.; Hitash Raja, Adv.; Bhuwan Kapoor, Adv.