The Crossbill News Desk
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 11) questioned the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) decision to invoke anti-terror provisions in connection with violence that broke out in West Bengal’s Murshidabad district last month, and asked the central agency to reassess whether the case warrants a probe under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act.
The Union government had, on January 26, directed the NIA to investigate the January 16 violence in Beldanga. The agency registered the case under Section 15 of the UAPA, 1962, terming the incident as economic terrorism. However, during the hearing, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised concerns over the manner in which the agency assumed jurisdiction.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the NIA, the bench asked whether it was “just and fair” for the NIA to exercise its power the way it had in the case, Live Law reported.
According to The Hindu, the court’s concerns were two-fold. First, it questioned whether the NIA could have formed an opinion on the nature of the incident without access to the primary records prepared by the West Bengal police.
“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 (terrorist act) of the UAPA is applicable?” Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked Raju.
Secondly, in the words of Justice Bagchi at the hearing on Wednesday, “Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as affecting economic security.”
He was referring to the January 16 violence that followed the return of the body of Alauddin Sheikh, a Bengali migrant worker who was allegedly murdered in neighbouring Jharkhand and brought to Beldanga for burial.
The West Bengal government had clarified on January 24 that Sheikh’s was a “death by suicide”. The post-mortem report of the 30-year-old and the Murshidabad police investigation ruled out murder or foul play.
Nevertheless, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs stepped in on January 26, asking the NIA to probe the unrest, during which roads were blocked, train services disrupted and tyres set on fire, leaving 12 persons injured.
The Centre’s intervention followed a January 20 order of the Calcutta High Court, which left it to the Union government to decide whether to involve the NIA.
The order came in response to petitions filed by Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly and BJP leader Suvendhu Adhikari, among others. The high court had also directed the state to ensure citizens’ “life, liberty, properties” in view of the prolonged disruption and violence. It was informed that central forces were already deployed in Murshidabad and that the state had not objected to additional deployment.
One of the Public Interest Litigations before the high court alleged that the violence targeted Hindus, as reported by Live Law.
During the January 20 hearing, the state government maintained that peace had been restored in the area.
Meanwhile, the state police had initiated its own investigation 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.
The West Bengal government subsequently approached the Supreme Court, contending that the Beldanga incidents did not attract provisions of the UAPA. Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee argued that the offences listed in the schedule to the UAPA, which permit invocation of the Act, were not made out in the case.
Opposing the state’s plea, Additional Solicitor General Raju submitted that the attacks were targeted and pre-planned, not spontaneous, according to Bar and Bench.
He also alleged before the Supreme Court that the state had not shared relevant documents with the NIA. In response, Justice Bagchi said the agency should “g0 back to” Calcutta High Court to seek access to the case papers.
Justice Bagchi further observed that the NIA must examine whether the violence was an “impromptu expression” of anguish that was not intended to cause economic insecurity, and indicated that the high court may have to revisit the matter.
Bar and Bench reported him as telling Raju: “You can say there was no use of explosives and that there was no intention to affect economic security. You can tell High Court that NIA invoked its power incorrectly.”
The Supreme Court has now directed the NIA to file a status report before the Calcutta High Court, in a sealed cover, “after or during its probe” into whether there is sufficient material to invoke the UAPA.
The continuation of the NIA’s investigation under anti-terror charges will depend on the assessment of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, the apex court clarified.
The Union government had, on January 26, directed the NIA to investigate the January 16 violence in Beldanga. The agency registered the case under Section 15 of the UAPA, 1962, terming the incident as economic terrorism. However, during the hearing, a bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi raised concerns over the manner in which the agency assumed jurisdiction.
Addressing Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, appearing for the NIA, the bench asked whether it was “just and fair” for the NIA to exercise its power the way it had in the case, Live Law reported.
According to The Hindu, the court’s concerns were two-fold. First, it questioned whether the NIA could have formed an opinion on the nature of the incident without access to the primary records prepared by the West Bengal police.
“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 (terrorist act) of the UAPA is applicable?” Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked Raju.
Secondly, in the words of Justice Bagchi at the hearing on Wednesday, “Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as affecting economic security.”
He was referring to the January 16 violence that followed the return of the body of Alauddin Sheikh, a Bengali migrant worker who was allegedly murdered in neighbouring Jharkhand and brought to Beldanga for burial.
The West Bengal government had clarified on January 24 that Sheikh’s was a “death by suicide”. The post-mortem report of the 30-year-old and the Murshidabad police investigation ruled out murder or foul play.
Nevertheless, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs stepped in on January 26, asking the NIA to probe the unrest, during which roads were blocked, train services disrupted and tyres set on fire, leaving 12 persons injured.
The Centre’s intervention followed a January 20 order of the Calcutta High Court, which left it to the Union government to decide whether to involve the NIA.
The order came in response to petitions filed by Leader of the Opposition in the West Bengal Assembly and BJP leader Suvendhu Adhikari, among others. The high court had also directed the state to ensure citizens’ “life, liberty, properties” in view of the prolonged disruption and violence. It was informed that central forces were already deployed in Murshidabad and that the state had not objected to additional deployment.
One of the Public Interest Litigations before the high court alleged that the violence targeted Hindus, as reported by Live Law.
During the January 20 hearing, the state government maintained that peace had been restored in the area.
Meanwhile, the state police had initiated its own investigation 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.
The West Bengal government subsequently approached the Supreme Court, contending that the Beldanga incidents did not attract provisions of the UAPA. Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee argued that the offences listed in the schedule to the UAPA, which permit invocation of the Act, were not made out in the case.
Opposing the state’s plea, Additional Solicitor General Raju submitted that the attacks were targeted and pre-planned, not spontaneous, according to Bar and Bench.
He also alleged before the Supreme Court that the state had not shared relevant documents with the NIA. In response, Justice Bagchi said the agency should “g0 back to” Calcutta High Court to seek access to the case papers.
Justice Bagchi further observed that the NIA must examine whether the violence was an “impromptu expression” of anguish that was not intended to cause economic insecurity, and indicated that the high court may have to revisit the matter.
Bar and Bench reported him as telling Raju: “You can say there was no use of explosives and that there was no intention to affect economic security. You can tell High Court that NIA invoked its power incorrectly.”
The Supreme Court has now directed the NIA to file a status report before the Calcutta High Court, in a sealed cover, “after or during its probe” into whether there is sufficient material to invoke the UAPA.
The continuation of the NIA’s investigation under anti-terror charges will depend on the assessment of the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court, the apex court clarified.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment