Jantar Mantar Student Protests | Delhi High Court Rejects PIL Seeking NIA Probe, Says ''It's For Centre To Decide'

The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking directions for an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) into the July 20 “Sansad Chalo” protest over the NEET paper leak.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that in terms of Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the NIA can be activated only upon on satisfaction of the Central Government, which the Courts cannot substitute.

"See your prayers. It is in respect of issuing direction to NIA to conduct inquiry and investigation etc. That is for authorities to consider if a crime reported has to be probed by State Govt or State Police. So far as your prayer for NIA is concerned, it is for Centre to take a call. It can be suo motu or initiated on report submitted by SHO. We cannot substitute our satisfaction to satisfaction which is to be recorded by Central Government," CJ orally told Petitioner.

Though Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, insisted that notice be issued in the petition as it involves issues in the realm of "public law", the Court said, "We are not curtailing your powers. If you want to refer investigation to NIA you can do so. Mechanism is in place, judgments are there. There is every authority available to you. Deal with it as efficiently as you should. You are under mandate."

After some arguments, the petition was ultimately withdrawn.

The plea, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, an ex-Vice President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, claimed that the agitation was part of a larger conspiracy involving foreign-funded organisations and political actors.

At the outset, the Court asked the Petitioner how it could order an inquiry by the NIA, which is a body to investigate scheduled offences.

"Tell us what is the statutory mechanism for invoking NIA jurisdiction...NIA is not an inquiry agency. It is investigation agency. At this juncture if there is FIR then recourse to Section 6 (Investigation of Scheduled Offences) can be have...In terms of Section 6 there has to be an FIR. Thereafter whole procedure is prescribed. How can you ask us to first get an inquiry conducted and then ask them to conduct investigation by NIA?"

Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha appearing for petitioner submitted the petition does not rely on scheduled offence but, it relies on the last limb of Section 6(3), which relates to 'gravity of offence and other relevant factors'.

For context, Section 6(3) prescribes that having regard to the gravity of the offence and other relevant factors, the Central Government must decide within 15 days whether an offence is a Scheduled Offence and fit for NIA investigation.

The Court at this juncture pointed that whether it is fit case or not has to proceed on twin things. "There has to be report and FIR. Thereafter officer in charge will forward information to State which will go to Central Govt. And if Centre finds it as fit case then it can refer matter to NIA. You are asking us to form opinion that this is fit case for NIA investigation. That is job of central government," the Chief said.

Sinha insisted that 'other relevant factors' has to be unearthed and for that, appointing specialised agency, whether NIA or SIT, is necessary.

Unconvinced, the High Court reiterated that NIA action can be instituted on satisfaction of Central Government alone. "Can we substitute our satisfaction to satisfaction of Central Govt?" the Judge asked.

As Sinha urged the Court that "situation in Delhi is beyond control", "roads are blocked, metros are closed" and there is rampant "violation of fundamental rights", the Court said it is not reflecting on what is being reported.

"We don't know. We are not reflecting on ourselves on what is reported or what you are saying. We are on legal issues. If SHO makes report and Central Govt forms opinion that FIRs are to be probed by NIA, they will do that. Entire mechanism is there. You represent authorities. We will ask them to take decision on your representation that's all...We cannot reflect upon anything merely by going through photos and videos.," it said.

At this juncture, SG Mehta submitted that if the Petitioner is seeking investigation by any 'other agency', notice may be issued. "This appears to be in a loose sense a cross FIR. Earlier notice was issued (in another matter)," he said.

However, the Court pointed that the prayer is for investigation, and not inquiry. "Investigation stage comes only after FIR. Which agency will investigate is call to be taken by authorities."

As Sinha insisted that any other specialised agency like CBI may initiate probe, the Court said,

"That again Delhi Police Establishment Act provides when CBI can take over any investigation. We are not saying we can't direct CBI. But NIA situation is different. CBI also depends on progress made in investigation by primary agency. If the court is not satisfied then CBI probe can be ordered. That stage has not come."

Sinha then pointed to vandalism of public and private property. "I am praying ask the police to give status report," he said.

The Court however responded, "Where is the question of filing status report. FIRs have been lodged two three days ago. As you say, these incidents are within notice and knowledge of authorities. Law is in place. They will invoke it."

SG Mehta then urged the Court to take a wholesome view of matter. "My only minor flag of the issue was that since matter is coming up, in public law doctrine, your lordships issue notice for September. This could also de hors prayer 1,2 your lordships will have complete picture otherwise it will be a piecemeal view of seeing the entire thing...I am not saying that petitioners who came yesterday (alleging police excesses during protests) are right. Or this petitioner is right," he said.

The Court however responded that the petitioner could approach the authorities, who could then consider the representation in accordance with law.

According to the petitioner, what began as a protest over the NEET examination paper leak was allegedly transformed into a political agitation after participation by various political leaders.

The petition alleged that the July 20 march witnessed violence, obstruction of public movement, attacks on journalists, damage to public and private property, attempts to breach Parliament security and injuries to police personnel.

Title: SATISH KUMAR AGGARWAL v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS