Suvendu Adhikari convoy attack: Supreme Court asks Calcutta HC to decide if NIA invoking UAPA is justified

The court was hearing an appeal by the state of West Bengal challenging the January 20, 2026, high court order that asked the NIA to consider whether it should invoke suo motu powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act to take over the investigation.

‘Tell HC this was incorrect application of mind by NIA’

Appearing for the state, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay questioned the NIA taking over the probe, saying there was no scheduled offence as per the NIA Act. He pointed out that the state police had registered a First Information Report (FIR) and made arrests in the matter.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the NIA had taken it over following the high court’s direction. “The high court made certain observations in paragraphs 23 and 24 of the order. And on that basis…directed (NIA) that please consider whether you will invoke your suo motu powers. Now, NIA has invoked the suo motu powers. Go back to the high court and make an application for the purpose of reconsideration whether the materials before the investigating agency, notwithstanding the observations in paras 23 and 24, to bring it within the ambit of impact on economic security,” he added.

The judge further said, “You do not dispute the actus reus. That is what is recorded here, that there was a blockade which created disturbance to movement of goods and services etc and also damage to public property.”

“But what we understand from your submission and the tenor of the order, you definitely disputed that this was not with the intention of causing any harm to economic security. It was an impromptu action borne out of anguish of people because of death of a migrant worker. So that issue may be re-examined by the high court,” said Justice Bagchi.

Bandyopadhyay said the NIA had invoked Section 15 of the UAPA, which deals with terrorist acts, but the requirements were not met in the case.

Justice Bagchi pointed out that the provision also speaks of actions threatening economic security. The judge added, “That is what we are also telling you, go and tell the high court that this was an incorrect application of mind by the NIA while invoking its suo motu powers under Section 6(5) because there is no use of explosives, there was no intention in the nature of economic security.”

State yet to hand over probe papers to NIA

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the NIA, said that “deadly weapons were used, particular sections of the people were targeted, this is porous border along Bangladesh, large number of shops were demolished, burnt, petrol was used”.

The CJI said, “We are not saying anything. That is the role of your agency. They will find out. If the agency can satisfy the high court that on the basis of such and such material, a prima facie case is made out, the law will take its own course, but let the high court examine that and take a call.”

Raju said that the state is yet to hand over the papers of the investigation to the NIA despite the agency registering an FIR. He added that the state police FIR also says that deadly weapons were used and there was a mob of 400-500 people.

Justice Bagchi said, “The state is in challenge to an order which does not order NIA investigation. It deserves consideration. We are not interdicting the (NIAs) decision (to take suo motu cognisance)…But the issue of correctness of the decision to invoke Section 15 (whether it) was right or wrong…”.

The judge added that the NIA decision to invoke UAPA was without looking into the documents and appeared to be “pre-decisional”.

“Is it a fair and just exercise of powers without looking into the documents…the case diary was not placed before you…,” Justice Bagchi said, adding, “It’s already a pre-decisional conclusion arrived at, without looking at the materials…So we would request you to look into the materials, we direct the state to hand over the papers, and you give your report on your independent investigation also, whether prima facie ingredients of Section 15 are disclosed or not, and the court will upon hearing both of you come to a finding on this issue.”

‘There, NIA slept over it’

Senior Advocate P S Patwalia, appearing for Adhikari, said that it was not an isolated incident.

Justice Bagchi, apparently referring to the violence in the state in April last year in the wake of the enactment of the Wakf (Amendment) Act, said, despite the high court direction to the NIA to consider taking suo motu cognisance, said “the NIA slept over it”.

“We have seen it happen on April ’25. And that is also a very important thing for the high court to consider. Because in April ’25, the high court division bench directed NIA to consider the invocation of their power under 6(5) and in our incident, that was much graver incident where even Bandyopadhyay agreed to deployment of the central armed forces. There NIA slept over it. Then what was the necessity for NIA, without even looking into the records, to initiate its powers under 6(5). That requires …We are not making any comments,” Justice Bagchi said.

Patwalia said that the place that witnessed the violence is an economically strategic highway. Justice Bagchi said, “Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security.”