The Supreme Court declined to stay the National Investigation Agency’s investigation into the Beldanga violence in Murshidabad district, West Bengal, reinforcing the High Court’s ruling that allowed the probe to continue. The bench, comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, described the High Court’s approach as “balanced” and appropriate in view of the Supreme Court’s prior directions.
The case reached the top court after the West Bengal government challenged the High Court’s refusal to halt the transfer of investigation materials to the NIA. The state argued that the move was inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s order of 11 February, which had instructed the High Court to determine whether the evidence justified invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, the law that enables an NIA investigation.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Badhopadhyaya, representing the state, submitted that without examining the Supreme Court’s February order, transferring the case files would contravene legal procedure. However, the bench emphasised that reviewing the case materials was essential for the NIA to comply with the apex court’s instructions. Justice Bagchi explained that assessing whether the provisions of the UAPA were applicable could only be done after the NIA examined the case diary and related documents. Chief Justice Surya Kant agreed with the view, describing the High Court’s stance as “quite balanced”.
The bench dismissed the state’s plea and urged the Calcutta High Court to proceed with hearings as per its schedule. Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the respondents.
Background of the Dispute
The controversy stems from an order issued by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs on 28 January 2026, directing the NIA to take over the investigation of Beldanga Police Station Case No. 51 of 2026 under Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. This followed the Calcutta High Court’s 20 January direction asking the Union government to examine whether the NIA could assume responsibility for the probe.
The case concerns allegations that a group of individuals transported diesel and other inflammable materials with the intention of setting fire to shops and vehicles during violent incidents in Murshidabad district in January 2026.
Following the High Court’s initial direction, the West Bengal government approached the Supreme Court. On 11 February, the apex court disposed of the state’s petition, instructing the High Court to evaluate whether the collected evidence justified the invocation of the UAPA. Subsequently, on 17 February, the trial court directed the state to hand over the investigation materials to the NIA, which the state challenged before the High Court.
Arguments and Court’s Reasoning
The state argued that the case was registered under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1972, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, rather than under UAPA. It contended that, in the absence of offences under the UAPA, there was no legal basis for the central government to invoke NIA powers.
The High Court, however, observed that the Supreme Court’s February 11 order required the NIA to report whether provisions of the UAPA were applicable. Access to the case diary and investigation records was essential for the agency to submit this report. Therefore, the transfer of materials was necessary to enable compliance with the Supreme Court’s directions.
With the Supreme Court’s endorsement, the NIA probe into Beldanga violence can now continue, and the High Court will hear the matter as scheduled under the case titled State of West Bengal and Ors versus Suvendu Adhikari and Ors, SLP(Crl) No. 4676/2026.
