E-Paper
HC bins plea seeking NIA probe into CJP protest , violence
New DelhiThe Delhi High Court on Friday declined to entertain a petition seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the ongoing protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and the violence that accompanied the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)’s “Chalo Sansad” march to Parliament, observing that the decision on whether a case merits NIA investigation rests exclusively with the Centre
New Delhi
The Delhi High Court on Friday declined to entertain a petition seeking a probe by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the ongoing protests at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar and the violence that accompanied the Cockroach Janata Party (CJP)’s “Chalo Sansad” march to Parliament, observing that the decision on whether a case merits NIA investigation rests exclusively with the Centre.
A bench of chief justice DK Upadhyaya and justice Tejas Karia said the statutory framework under the National Investigation Agency Act lays down a specific procedure for referring cases to NIA, under which the officer-in-charge of a police station forwards a report to the state government, which in turn sends it to the Centre for consideration.
The Central government alone is empowered to decide whether a case is a “fit case” for an NIA investigation, the court observed.
“How can you ask us? For a ‘fit case’, there has to be a report, there has to be an FIR, information has to be forwarded by the State to the Centre, and if the Centre finds the matter appropriate, it can send the FIR to the NIA. You’re asking us to form an opinion that this is a fit case. This job under the statute has been entrusted to the Centre. Can the court substitute its satisfaction with the satisfaction of the Central government?” the bench asked counsel for petitioner Satish Kumar Aggarwal.
The court added that notice could not be issued merely because such a prayer had been made in the petition.
“The call has to be taken by them (the Centre). It is for the Central government to take a decision. We cannot substitute our satisfaction with the satisfaction of the Central government,” the bench observed.
The remarks came after Aggarwal’s counsel urged the court to at least issue notice, arguing that the petition also sought directions to identify those responsible for the violence and to register FIRs against them.
Appearing for the Centre, solicitor general Tushar Mehta, additional solicitor general Chetan Sharma and standing counsel Ashish Dixit broadly agreed with the court’s interpretation of the NIA Act. Mehta submitted that, if at all, notice could be confined to the limited issue of identifying those responsible for the violence and ensuring registration of FIRs, with the matter being heard alongside the pending petitions alleging excessive use of force by police against CJP protesters. He also pointed out that there were rival allegations from both sides regarding the clashes.
The bench, however, observed that the legal framework already provides a remedy for seeking registration of criminal cases and said the petitioner was free to approach the competent authorities by way of a representation.
Faced with the court’s observations, Aggarwal’s counsel sought permission to withdraw the petition. The court accordingly dismissed it as withdrawn.
To be sure, the same bench on Friday also disposed of another petition filed by NGO Save India Foundation seeking directions to Delhi Police to initiate criminal proceedings against CJP protesters for alleged arson, assault on police personnel and damage to public property at Jantar Mantar. The court granted the petitioner liberty to approach the appropriate authorities, observing that they would be free to take action in accordance with law.
