Supreme Court Rejects West Bengal Govt's Plea To Stay NIA Probe In Beldanga Violence

The Supreme Court today refused to interfere in the Calcutta High Court's order, which refused to stay the investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in relation to the Beldanga violence in Murshidabad district in January this year.

A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi refused to accept the challenge raised by the State of West Bengal to the High Court's order, saying that a balanced view has been taken by the High Court.

The High Court had also refused to stay the order of the City Sessions Court, Bichar Bhawan, Calcutta, directing the transfer of case materials to the NIA.

Senior Advocate Kalyan Badhopadhyaya, for the State, submitted that the order to hand over the materials to the NIA was contrary to the Supreme Court's February 11 order asking the High Court to examine if the materials justified the invocation of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act in the case. The invocation of the UAPA gives the basis for the NIA investigation, as UAPA is a scheduled offence in the NIA Act.

The bench at the outset noted that without the case file/ case diary, the NIA could not comply with the Supreme Court's earlier directions.

Justice Bagchi explained that the order of February 11 by the Supreme Court intended that the High Court should determine whether a case of UAPA was made out on the basis of the report, which requires the contents of the case diary.

Justice Bagchi said, "We do not find any conflict between the two (the trial court's order and the Supreme Court order). Seeing the materials collected during the investigation which is already been done by the state police, to come to a conclusion that UAPA is attracted, is exactly what we wanted to convey....it is for the High Court to decide whether or how UAPA."

The CJI weighed in to add, "I think the view taken is quite balanced."

The bench proceeded to dismiss the matter, while asking the High Court to hear the case as per it's schedule.

"We are not inclined to entertain; however, we request the High Court to endeavour to hear the case on that date."

Sr Advocate Siddharth Luthra appeared for the respondents.

Background Of Dispute

The dispute arose after the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, by an order dated January 28, 2026, directed 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 was after the High Court, on January 20, asked the Union to examine if NIA probe can be initiated.

The case relates to allegations that a group of persons had carried diesel and other inflammable materials intending to set fire to shops and vehicles during violence in Murshidabad district.

Challenging the January 20 order, the State earlier approached the Supreme Court. On February 11, the Supreme Court disposed of the State's petition, asking the High Court to examine, on the basis of materials collected by the NIA, if the invocation of the UAPA was justified.

After the Trial Court on February 17 passed an order to the State to hand over the materials to the NIA, the State approached the High Court challenging it, saying it was contrary to the Suprem Court's order.

Before the Calcutta High Court

It was the case of the state government that, after the said order of the Supreme Court, the written complaint and the formal FIR of case would reveal that no case was initiated under the schedule mentioned Acts of NIA Act and thus there cannot be any occasion on the part of the NIA authority to take up the charge of investigation by invoking Section 6 (5) of NIA Act.

The State contended that the case was registered under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, 1972 and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act, 1984, and not under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967.

According to the State, the absence of offences under the UAPA meant there was no basis for the Central Government to invoke powers under the NIA Act and transfer the investigation to the NIA.

The High Court observed that the Supreme Court had directed the NIA to submit a report to the High Court indicating whether the provisions of the UAPA were attracted in the case.

For the agency to prepare such a report, it would necessarily require access to the case diary and other investigation materials, the Bench noted.

" On careful perusal of the order dated 11.02.2026 as passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court it appears to us that in order to come to a logical conclusion as to whether a prima facie case for investigation under UAPA is made out or not, the NIA is duty-bound to submit its report, post-investigation or during the course of investigation before this Court. It thus appears that in order to enable the NIA to submit its report, post-investigation or during the course of investigation as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court before this Court, the NIA must obtain the case diary in relation to the aforementioned P.S. Case without which it is practically impossible to submit a report by the NIA."

Since the trial court's order directing transfer of the case diary facilitated compliance with the Supreme Court's directions, the High Court held that there was no reason to stay the order or halt the NIA proceedings.

Case details : THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. Versus SUVENDU ADHIKARI AND ORS.| SLP(Crl) No. 4676/2026