ATTACK ON SUVENDU ADHIKARI’S CONVOY: SUPREME COURT DIRECTS CALCUTTA HIGH COURT TO ASSESS VALIDITY OF UAPA CHARGES INVOKED BY NIA:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday directed the Calcutta High Court to examine whether the invocation of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) in connection with the January 10 attack on the convoy of West Bengal Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari was justified. The Court asked the NIA to place its investigation materials before the High Court in a sealed cover to enable an independent assessment of whether a prima facie case under the UAPA is made out.

A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi was hearing a petition filed by the State of West Bengal challenging the Calcutta High Court’s January 20 order directing the Centre to consider handing over the probe to the NIA under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act. Disposing of the State’s plea, the Supreme Court observed that since the High Court had made only passing observations without expressing any conclusive opinion on the applicability of the UAPA, it would be appropriate for the High Court to independently examine the NIA’s status report and thereafter issue consequential directions. The Bench clarified that it had not expressed any view on the merits of the controversy.

The Court also transferred to the Calcutta High Court a separate writ petition filed by the State challenging the Union Government’s direction entrusting the investigation to the NIA. During the hearing, the Bench sought to understand the basis on which the NIA had registered a suo motu FIR in the matter. Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandhopadhyay, appearing for the State, contended that no scheduled offence under the NIA Act had been made out and therefore the NIA’s intervention was unwarranted. He submitted that the State Police had already registered an FIR and arrested individuals allegedly involved in the incident.

Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju, representing the NIA, informed the Court that the Ministry of Home Affairs had, on January 28, directed the agency to take over the probe. He argued that the incident occurred near the Bangladesh border and involved the use of deadly weapons, thereby raising concerns relating to national security. He further alleged that the State Police had not been cooperating and had delayed handing over relevant documents.

Bandhopadhyay questioned how the offence of terrorism under Section 15(1) of the UAPA was attracted in the present case. He argued that there was no use of explosives or other materials that would bring the incident within the ambit of a scheduled offence under the NIA Act.

Justice Bagchi raised concerns over the manner in which the agency appeared to have concluded that Section 15 of the UAPA was applicable. The judge observed that such a determination should be based on a careful examination of the case diary and supporting materials, and indicated that arriving at a conclusion without scrutinising the underlying documents could amount to a premature assessment. The Bench also remarked that not every violent or emotionally charged incident could automatically be characterised as a threat to national or economic security warranting invocation of anti-terror legislation. Justice Bagchi further noted that in relation to a prior attack in April 2025, the High Court had directed an NIA probe, but the agency had not acted promptly on that order.

In light of these submissions, the Supreme Court directed the NIA to submit its report, whether post-investigation or during the course of investigation, to the Calcutta High Court in a sealed cover. The High Court has been tasked with independently assessing the material to determine whether the invocation of the UAPA is legally sustainable.