Supreme Court Dismisses West Bengal Govt's Plea Challenging HC Direction To Transfer Ram Navami Violence Cases To NIA

The Supreme Court on Monday dismissed the petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the investigation in six FIRs related to Ram Navami violence from March 31 to April 3 to the National Investigation Agency.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice JB Pardiwala, and Justice Manoj Misra noted that in the present case, after the High Court's order, the Central Government has exercised its suo motu powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act to ask the NIA to investigate these cases. It also noted that the Centre's subsequent notification has not been challenged by the State Government.

The bench further noted that Section 6(1) of the NIA Act casts an obligation on the part of the police officer to inform the State Government about any scheduled offence and later, the State Government is obliged to forward such information to the Central Government. However, the power of the Central Government to refer the investigation to the NIA is not constrained by the report submitted by the State Government.  

Observing that the Supreme Court is not required to decide the sufficiency or veracity of the allegations at the present stage, the bench stated in the order :

"The precise contours of investigation which should be carried by NIA cannot be anticipated at this stage. In this backdrop, and particularly in absence of challenge to notification, we are not inclined to entertain the SLP.We clarify that the observations made by HC be confined to question of whether NIA had jurisdiction to probe"

The High Court, while ordering NIA probe on a PIL filed by the Leader of Opposition Suvendhu Adhikari, had observed that there were allegations of use of bombs and explosives, which will attract Explosives Act, a scheduled offence under the NIA Act

Arguments of WB Police

Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the West Bengal Police, argued that the six FIRs were registered over different incidents which took place at different places on different dates. There was no evidence of use of bombs or explosives and hence the Explosives Act was not invoked. The smoke grenades and tear gas grenades used by the police to control the mob are being projected as explosives. The injury reports do not indicate that the victims have suffered blast injuries. No shrapnels or craters were found so as to indicate use of bombs. "We can't add Explosives Act if a pataka during Diwali goes off...", Sankaranarayanan said during the hearing.

The senior counsel argued that the High Court order had the effect of diminishing the full credibility of the state police and demoralising the police officers. He submitted that most of the victims of the Ram Navami clashes were police officers themselves, who got overwhelmed by the mob of thousands who were armed with swords and bamboo sticks. He alleged that the rally organisers deviated from the route approved by the police and incited violence.

Sankaranarayan also alleged that the record of NIA in completing investigation and securing convictions was poor, going by the statistics from their own website and claimed that the State police will be able to complete the investigation in a time-bound manner.

Respondents' arguments

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for Suvendhu Adhikari, submitted that bombs and explosives were widely hurled during the religious rallies and the State police deliberately omitted to mention these aspects in the FIRs. There are news reports about the police statements that people got injured due to bomb explosions. He also informed the Court that after the Court direction, the Central Government has issued a notification under Section 6(5) of the Act suo motu directing the NIA to investigate the cases and corresponding FIRs have been registered by the NIA over which the competent court has taken cognizance.

Advocate Bansuri Swaraj, appearing for a rally organiser, submitted that the State did not "move a muscle" until the High Court intervened and that in the police FIRs, the rally members were made as the accused instead of the actual perpetrators.

Solicitor General of India Tushar Mehta appeared for the NIA.