The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Calcutta High Court to determine whether the National Investigation Agency (NIA) rightly invoked the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the January 10 attack on the convoy of Leader of Opposition Suvendhu Adhikari.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi issued the direction while disposing of a petition filed by the State of West Bengal. The State had challenged the Calcutta High Court’s January 20 order asking it to consider an NIA probe under Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act.
NIA Must File Sealed Report
The Supreme Court directed the NIA to submit a status report to the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in a sealed cover. The agency may file the report during or after the investigation. The report must state whether the material collected discloses a prima facie case under the UAPA.
In its order, the Bench stated:
“Suffice it will be to direct the NIA to submit the report, post investigation or during the course of investigation, before the division bench of the High Court in a sealed cover, as to whether on the basis of material/information gathered by it, any prima facie case for investigation under the provisions of the UAPA is made out or not. Since there are only passing observations in the impugned order of the High Court, without any definite opinion in relation to the attraction of the UAPA, we request the High Court to consider the status report of the NIA independently and issue consequential directions.”
The Court clarified that it has not expressed any view on the merits. It also transferred to the High Court a writ petition filed by the State challenging the Union Government’s direction for an NIA investigation.
Court Questions Basis of UAPA Charges
During the hearing, the Bench asked the NIA to explain why it registered a suo motu FIR in the matter.
Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing for the State, argued that no scheduled offence under the NIA Act had occurred. He submitted that the State Police had already registered an FIR and arrested individuals involved in the violence. Therefore, he contended, the NIA probe lacked legal basis.
Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju informed the Court that the Ministry of Home Affairs, on January 28, directed the NIA to take over the investigation. He stated that the attack took place near the Bangladesh border and involved deadly weapons. According to him, the facts raised national security concerns. He further alleged that the State Police did not cooperate and merely handed over papers.
Bandhopadhyay questioned the applicability of Section 15(1) of the UAPA, which defines a terrorist act. He argued that the incident did not involve explosives and did not attract any scheduled offence under the NIA Act.
Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked how the NIA concluded that Section 15 applied. He observed:
“Without looking into documents, you have said Section 15 NIA Act is justified. The case diary was not placed before you… this is a pre-decisional conclusion arrived at.”
He further remarked:
“Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security.”
Justice Bagchi also referred to an earlier attack in April 2025 where the High Court had ordered an NIA probe. He noted that the NIA had “slept over it.”
Senior Advocate P.S. Patwalia appeared for Suvendhu Adhikari.
Case Details
Case Title: The State of West Bengal v. Suvendu Adhikari
Case Number: SLP (Crl.) No. 2369/2026
