Ram Navami Violence | Do FIRs Pertain To The Same Rally In West Bengal? Supreme Court Asks In State's Plea Against NIA Probe

The Supreme Court on Monday adjourned to Friday a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court order transferring the cases related to Ram Navami violence to the National Investigation Agency.

The bench comprising Chief Justice of India DY Chandrachud, Justice PS Narasimha, and Justice Manoj Misra asked the parties to verify if the six FIRs registered over the Ram Navami violence cases overlap and pertain to the same rally. 

Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for the State, contended that there was no jurisdiction for the NIA as the scheduled offences under the NIA Act were not involved in the case.

The bench however pointed out that the Explosive Substances Act 1908 is a scheduled offence in the NIA Act and the High Court has held that the police has deliberately omitted to invoke this statute in the FIRs registered over the violence. Singhvi replied that none of the cases related to the use of bombs so as to invoke the Explosives Act and none of the medical reports showed bomb injuries on the victims. He alleged that the High Court passed the order in a "politically motivated petition" filed by an opposition party leader. Senior Advocate Gopal Sankaranarayanan, appearing for the West Bengal Police, submitted that the High Court's order "demoralises the state police force".

Senior Advocate PS Patwalia, appearing for Suvendhu Adhikari (the petitioner before the High Court), 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.

Regarding the Centre's notification, Singhvi contended that it was solely based on the High Court's order; however, Patwalia refuted this argument by saying that the Centre has independently exercised its suo motu powers under Section 6(5), although the High Court's order is referred to in the notification. Sankaranarayanan added that the Centre issued the notification on May 8 soon after the State filed the petition in the Supreme Court, which was mentioned on May 6.

Sankaranarayanan affirmed that no bombs were detected in any of the cases. He added that in past, whenever cases involving explosives were found, the State had informed the Centre in terms of the NIA Act and the objection in the present case was wholly based on facts.  

At this juncture, the parties clashed on whether the incident should be treated as a single, unified event or if it should be split. 

Patwalia, expressing concern that dividing the incident into multiple parts would hinder the investigation, stated–

"This is one Ramnavami incident. It's all one common incident." 

However, Sankarnarayanan, contested Patwalia's viewpoint and stated–

"My friend should bother to read our report. The procession is on the same day but at different places with different people."

Sankarnarayanan added that since there were separate accused individuals and multiple FIRs filed, it was necessary to treat them as distinct events.

Seeking clarification, the Chief Justice intervened, and instructed the parties to review the FIRs and determine if they indeed pertained to the same incident. He asked–

"Have you done this exercise? There are 6 FIRs. Do they all relate to the same incident? We want you to do that exercise and tell us. You read the FIR and tell us."

The parties agreed to the same and the matter was adjourned to Friday (July 21, 2023).

Background