THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.versusSUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS.

842               [2023] COURT
               SUPREME   10 S.C.R.REPORTS
                                   842 : 2023 INSC 647
                                                   [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A                  THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
                                        v.
                       SUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS.
          (Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 6283-6286 of 2023)
B                                JULY 24, 2023
             [DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
              J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
            National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 – s.6(5) – Exercise
      of Jurisdiction u/s. 6(5) – Six FIRs were registered between
C
      30.03.2023 to 03.04.2023 in relation to different incidents – Acting
      on a Public Interest Litigation, High Court by its order held that the
      allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive
      Substances Act, and held that the entire investigation should be
      transferred to the National Investigation Agency with a direction to
D     the Central Government to exercise their power u/s 6(5) Act of 2008
      – Central Government issued notification in exercise of its power u/
      s. 6(5) – Pursuant thereto, Six FIRs registered on 10.05.2023 and
      cognizance taken by Special Court – On appeal, held: The NIA has
      exercised its jurisdiction specifically with reference to its powers
      under Section 6(5) – The precise contours of the investigation which
E
      should be carried out by the NIA cannot be anticipated or restricted
      at present stage – Cognizance also taken by NIA Court – The
      judgment of High Court affirmed – SLP disposed of.
            EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
      Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 6283-6286 of 2023.
F
            From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2023 of the High Court
      at Calcutta in WPA (P) Nos.151, 154, 156 and 162 of 2023.
            Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Advs.,
      Sanjay Basu, Amit Bhandari, Nipun Saxena, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Aditi
G     Gupta, Ms. Anju Thomas, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika Haryani,
      Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari,
      Bhanu Mishra, Ms. Muskan Surana, Saransh Bhardwaj, Archit Adlakha,
      Ms. Soumya Saxena, Aditya Raj Pandey, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for
      the Petitioners.

H
                                       842
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SUVENDU ADHIKARI &                          843
                        ORS.

       Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, P. S. patwalia, Sr. Adv., Pranab       A
Prakash, Abhishek Sarkar, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms.
Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Nihar Dharmadhikari, Tejasvi Gupta,
Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Lokenath Chatterjee, Rahul Sharma,
Nirnimesh Dube, Kanu Agarwal, Anmol Chandan, Ashok Panigrahi, Ms.
Sansriti Pathak, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Advs.
                                                                               B
for the Respondents.

      The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
      DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
       1. Six first information reports were registered by the Police in       C
the State of West Bengal. Details of these first information reports have
been tabulated in a statement which has been furnished by the State of
West Bengal :


                                                                               D




                                                                               E




                                                                               F




       2. Acting on a Public Interest Litigation, a Division Bench of the      G
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta by its order dated 27 April 2023
held that the allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive
Substances Act. Hence, the High Court held that this is a fit case where
the entire investigation should be transferred to the National Investigation
Agency with a direction to the Central Government to exercise their
                                                                               H
844            SUPREME COURT REPORTS                           [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A     power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008.
             3. The proceedings were thus disposed of by the High Court by
      directing the State police to ensure that all the FIRs, documents, material
      seized and CCTV footage, among other things, should be immediately
      handed over to the NIA which shall commence investigation and proceed
B     in accordance with law. The police authorities of the State of West Bengal
      were directed to hand over all material to the NIA within two weeks.
             4. During the course of hearing, we have heard Mr Gopal
      Sankarnarayan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West
      Bengal, Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf
C     of the NIA, Mr PS Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
      original petitioner before the High Court and Ms Bansuri Swaraj, counsel
      appearing on behalf of an intervenor who had filed a complaint arising
      out of the incidents in question.
            5. The principal submissions which have been urged on behalf of
D     the petitioners are :
            (i) Six FIRs were registered by the police in relation to six different
                incidents spanning four distinct dates;
            (ii) The High Court has dwelt at considerable length on the
                 previous orders which it passed for transfer of investigations
E                to the NIA;
            (iii) Two grounds have weighed with the High Court :
                 (a) FIR 141 of 2023 dated 02 April 2023 contains allegations
                     about the alleged use of bombs; and
F                (b) All four seizure memos appear to be in the same
                     handwriting.
            (iv) As regards (a) above, the injuries sustained by the injured
                 complainant indicate only abrasions which are inconsistent
                 with such an incident. As regards (b) above, seven different
G                police officers had carried out the investigation involving, inter
                 alia, the preparation of the seizure memos;
            (v) The police authorities in the State of West Bengal have duly
                acted in pursuance of the alleged incidents which took place
                during the course of the Ram Navami observances in the
H               State; and
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SUVENDU ADHIKARI &                           845
       ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

      (vi) The direction by the High Court for the transfer of investigation    A
           to the NIA is not warranted and would demoralise the police
           in conducting investigation in accordance with law.
       6. On the other hand, the Solicitor General of India appearing on
behalf of the NIA and the counsel appearing on behalf of the original
petitioners and the intervenors supported the order of the High Court.          B
       7. Section 6(1) of the NIA Act requires an officer in-charge of a
police station to forward a report to the State Government forthwith on
the receipt of information and the recording thereof under Section 154
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, “relating to any scheduled offence”.
The expression “relating to any scheduled offence” is an expression of          C
a broad amplitude. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 mandates that on receipt
of a report under Section 6(1), the State Government shall forward the
report to the Central Government “as expeditiously as possible”.
Thereafter, in terms of sub-section (3), the Central Government has to
determine within a stipulated period on the basis of the information made
available by the State Government “or received from other sources”,             D
whether the offence is a scheduled offence or not and whether having
regard to the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, it is a fit
case to be investigated by the agency. Upon forming such an opinion,
the Central Government is empowered under sub-section (4) to direct
the NIA to investigate the offence.                                             E
        8. Sub-section (1) of Section 6 casts an affirmative obligation
initially on the officer in-charge of a police station to report to the State
Government, on receipt of information under Section 154 relating to any
scheduled offence. Section 6(2) casts a duty upon the State Government
to forward the report to the Central Government expeditiously. As regards       F
the role of the Central Government, sub- section (3) makes it abundantly
clear that the formation of opinion on whether the offence is a scheduled
offence and whether the case is a fit case to be investigated by the NIA
having regard to the gravity of the offence, may be based not only on the
information which has been made available by the State Government
but also on such information as is received from other sources. The             G
power of the Central Government to refer an investigation to the NIA is
not constrained to the report which is submitted by the State Government
upon receipt of the initial report of the officer in-charge of the police
station.
                                                                                H
846             SUPREME COURT REPORTS                          [2023] 10 S.C.R.


A            9. The Central Government, in terms of its mandate, has to apply
      its mind to whether firstly, the offence is a scheduled offence or not; and
      secondly, whether having regard to the gravity of the offence and other
      relevant factors, it is a fit case to be investigaged by the NIA.
             10. Independent of these provisions, sub-section (5) of Section 6
B     which is prefaced by a non obstante provision empowers the Central
      Government to exercise a suo moto power to direct the NIA to investigate
      an offence when it forms the opinion that a scheduled offence has been
      committed which is required to be investigated under the Act. Upon
      exercise of powers by the Central Government either under sub-section
      (4) or sub-section (5), the State Government and any police officer of
C     the State Government investigating the offence would stand restrained
      from proceeding with the investigation and are duty bound to transfer
      the relevant documents and records to the NIA forthwith.
             11. The directions of the High Court in the impugned order were
      rendered on 27 April 2023. Following this, on 8 May 2023, the Central
D     Government issued a notification in exercise of its power under Section
      6(5). The notification which has been issued by the Central Government
      makes a reference to the order passed by the High Court but, having
      done so, it proceeds to expressly clarify that the power was also being
      exercised in terms of the provisions of Section 6(5). Pursuant thereto,
E     six FIRs were registered on 10 May 2023. Cognizance has been taken
      by the Special Court on 11 May 2023. This sequence of events which
      has been indicated in the submissions of Mr PS Patwalia, senior counsel
      and as authenticated in the submission of the Solicitor General, is not in
      dispute. Hence, as the matter stands, the NIA has exercised its jurisdiction
      specifically with reference to its powers under Section 6(5).
F
             12. At this stage, the Court is not called upon to either decide on
      the sufficiency of the allegations or their veracity. The remit of this
      Court would be to determine whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the
      Central Government under Section 6(5) is extraneous to the powers
      conferred upon it by Section 6(5) so as to warrant the interference of
G     this Court.
            13. The six FIRs which were registered by the State police
      authorities were all between 30 March 2023 and 3 April 2023 and straddle
      four police stations. Of them, two FIRs which have been recorded at
      Police Station Shibpur on 31 March 2023 relate to incidents which
H
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SUVENDU ADHIKARI &                             847
       ORS. [DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI]

occurred on 31 March 2023 and are proximate in time. Likewise, the                A
same situation appears from the FIRs which have been registered at
Police Station Serampore on 2 April 2023 and 03 April 2023.
       14. The precise contours of the investigation which should be
carried out by the NIA cannot be anticipated or restricted at this stage.
Cognizance has also been taken by the NIA Court.                                  B
      15. There is no challenge to the validity of the notification which
was issued under Section 6(5).
       16. Hence, we are not inclined to entertain the Special Leave
Petitions, though for the reasons which have been indicated above.
                                                                                  C
       17. We clarify that the observations which were made by the
High Court in the impugned order would be confined to the question as
to whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the NIA under the National
Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is valid. For the above reasons, we affirm
the judgment of the High Court.
                                                                                  D
       18. The Special Leave Petitions are disposed of in the above terms.
       19. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.

Ankit Gyan                                                    SLPs disposed of.
(Assisted by : Aarsh Choudhary, LCRA)                                             E




                                                                                  F




                                                                                  G




                                                                                  H