The Supreme Courtroom in the present day refused to intrude within the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom’s order, which refused to remain the investigation by the Nationwide Investigation Company (NIA) in relation to the Beldanga violence in Murshidabad district in January this yr.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to simply accept the problem raised by the State of West Bengal to the Excessive Courtroom’s order, saying {that a} balanced view has been taken by the Excessive Courtroom.
The Excessive Courtroom had additionally refused to remain the order of the Metropolis Classes Courtroom, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, directing the switch of case supplies to the NIA.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Badhopadhyaya, for the State, submitted that the order handy over the supplies to the NIA was opposite to the Supreme Courtroom’s February 11 order asking the Excessive Courtroom to look at if the supplies justified the invocation of the Illegal Actions Prevention Act within the case. The invocation of the UAPA provides the idea for the NIA investigation, as UAPA is a scheduled offence within the NIA Act.
The bench on the outset famous that with out the case file/ case diary, the NIA couldn’t adjust to the Supreme Courtroom’s earlier instructions.
Justice Bagchi defined that the order of February 11 by the Supreme Courtroom meant that the Excessive Courtroom ought to decide whether or not a case of UAPA was made out on the idea of the report, which requires the contents of the case diary.
Justice Bagchi mentioned, “We don’t discover any battle between the 2 (the trial courtroom’s order and the Supreme Courtroom order). Seeing the supplies collected throughout the investigation which is already been performed by the state police, to come back to a conclusion that UAPA is attracted, is strictly what we wished to convey….it’s for the Excessive Courtroom to determine whether or not or how UAPA.”
The CJI weighed in so as to add, “I feel the view taken is sort of balanced.”
The bench proceeded to dismiss the matter, whereas asking the Excessive Courtroom to listen to the case as per it is schedule.
“We aren’t inclined to entertain; nevertheless, we request the Excessive Courtroom to endeavour to listen to the case on that date.”
Sr Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the respondents.
Background Of Dispute
The dispute arose after the Union Ministry of House Affairs, by an order dated January 28, 2026, directed the NIA to take over the investigation of Beldanga Police Station Case No. 51 of 2026 below Part 6(5) of the Nationwide Investigation Company Act, 2008. This was after the Excessive Courtroom, on January 20, requested the Union to look at if NIA probe could be initiated.
The case pertains to allegations {that a} group of individuals had carried diesel and different inflammable supplies desiring to set fireplace to retailers and autos throughout violence in Murshidabad district.
Difficult the January 20 order, the State earlier approached the Supreme Courtroom. On February 11, the Supreme Courtroom disposed of the State’s petition, asking the Excessive Courtroom to look at, on the idea of supplies collected by the NIA, if the invocation of the UAPA was justified.
After the Trial Courtroom on February 17 handed an order to the State handy over the supplies to the NIA, the State approached the Excessive Courtroom difficult it, saying it was opposite to the Suprem Courtroom’s order.
Earlier than the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom
It was the case of the state authorities that, after the mentioned order of the Supreme Courtroom, the written grievance and the formal FIR of case would reveal that no case was initiated below the schedule talked about Acts of NIA Act and thus there can’t be any event on the a part of the NIA authority to take up the cost of investigation by invoking Part 6 (5) of NIA Act.
The State contended that the case was registered below provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the West Bengal Upkeep of Public Order Act, 1972 and the Prevention of Injury to Public Property Act, 1984, and never below the Illegal Actions (Prevention) Act, 1967.
Based on the State, the absence of offences below the UAPA meant there was no foundation for the Central Authorities to invoke powers below the NIA Act and switch the investigation to the NIA.
The Excessive Courtroom noticed that the Supreme Courtroom had directed the NIA to submit a report back to the Excessive Courtroom indicating whether or not the provisions of the UAPA have been attracted within the case.
For the company to arrange such a report, it will essentially require entry to the case diary and different investigation supplies, the Bench famous.
” On cautious perusal of the order dated 11.02.2026 as handed by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtroom it seems to us that to be able to come to a logical conclusion as as to whether a prima facie case for investigation below UAPA is made out or not, the NIA is duty-bound to submit its report, post-investigation or throughout the course of investigation earlier than this Courtroom. It thus seems that to be able to allow the NIA to submit its report, post-investigation or throughout the course of investigation as directed by the Hon’ble Supreme Courtroom earlier than this Courtroom, the NIA should acquire the case diary in relation to the aforementioned P.S. Case with out which it’s virtually unimaginable to submit a report by the NIA.”
Because the trial courtroom’s order directing switch of the case diary facilitated compliance with the Supreme Courtroom’s instructions, the Excessive Courtroom held that there was no purpose to remain the order or halt the NIA proceedings.
Case particulars : THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Versus SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ORS.| SLP(Crl) No. 4676/2026
 in relation to the Beldanga violence...){kind=link}