E-Paper
Independently examine UAPA provisions in Murshidabad violence case: SC to Calcutta HC
The order came on an appeal filed by the West Bengal government challenging a January 20 order of the high court that left it open for the Centre to direct a probe by the NIA.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday asked the Calcutta high court to “independently” examine whether provisions of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) were attracted in the violence that broke out in Murshidabad’s Beldanga area following the death of a migrant worker, even as it observed that every emotional outburst cannot be “packaged as threat to economic security”.
The order came on an appeal filed by the West Bengal government challenging a January 20 order of the high court that left it open for the Centre to direct a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the violent incidents.
Following the high court’s order, the Centre on January 28 entrusted the probe to the NIA, terming the allegations a “terrorist act” under Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA, which includes acts that threaten the economic security of the country.
“Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security,” a bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and justice Joymalya Bagchi said, declining to interfere at this stage and noting that the matter remains pending before the high court. The bench also recorded that there were subsequent developments, including the state’s challenge before the Supreme Court to the Centre’s January 28 order.
The court said, “We do not deem it appropriate to express any opinion at this premature stage, suffice it to direct the NIA to submit its report post-investigation or during investigation to the division bench (of the high court) in a sealed cover as to whether, based on the material gathered, any prima facie case under UAPA is made out.”
Observing that the January 20 high court order had not examined this aspect, the bench added, “We request the HC to consider the status report of the NIA independently and issue consequential directions.” The Supreme Court also transferred the state’s appeal against the Union ministry of home affairs’ January 28 order to be heard by the same high court bench headed by chief justice Sujoy Paul.
The high court’s January 20 order was passed on a plea filed by BJP leader and West Bengal leader of opposition Suvendu Adhikari, who alleged that fresh violence erupted on January 17 and sought protection for citizens as well as an independent probe into the blockade of a crucial national highway used for transporting essential supplies.
Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for the state, argued that the high court order was passed without giving the state an opportunity to respond, even though the police had already registered an FIR and arrested 35 persons. He questioned the invocation of the “terrorist act” provision, saying there was no use of dangerous weapons or threat to national security or integrity.
The bench told the state, “You tell the high court that there is an incorrect application of mind by the NIA as there was no use of explosives. You do not deny there was a blockade due to which essential services were impeded and violence took place.”
Additional solicitor general SV Raju, appearing for the NIA, informed the court that the area shares a porous border with Bangladesh and raised security concerns. He said petrol and other deadly weapons were used by protestors and objected to the state’s opposition to the probe and its refusal to hand over case documents so far.
Adhikari, represented by senior advocate PS Patwalia, said the blockade occurred on an economically strategic highway, explaining the possible basis for invoking Section 15(1)(a) of the UAPA.
The bench, however, told the NIA, “You have taken a decision without looking at documents. The case diary was not placed before you. It was a pre-decisional conclusion that you arrived at.” It also noted that Adhikari’s plea was moved in a pending writ petition related to last year’s Murshidabad violence, in which the state had agreed to the deployment of central forces. Referring to the high court’s April 17, 2025 order, which left it open for the Centre to invoke its suo motu powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act, the bench remarked, “The NIA slept over the matter.”
The Supreme Court clarified that its direction permitting the NIA to submit a report should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, as it disposed of the state’s plea.
