Supreme Court Orders Calcutta High Court to Review NIA's UAPA Application in Suvendu Adhikari Attack Probe
The Supreme Court of India has issued a directive for the Calcutta High Court to independently assess a report from the National Investigation Agency (NIA) concerning the alleged attack on the convoy of West Bengal Opposition leader Suvendu Adhikari. The apex court emphasized that the high court must determine whether there are sufficient grounds for invoking the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, in this high-profile case.
Court's Rationale and Procedural Directions
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi stated that it would be premature to express any opinion at this stage. Instead, they directed the NIA to submit its investigation report, either during or after the probe, in a sealed cover to a division bench of the Calcutta High Court. The high court is tasked with evaluating whether the gathered material establishes a prima facie case under the UAPA provisions.
The Supreme Court's order came while hearing an appeal by the state of West Bengal, which challenged a January 20, 2026, high court order. That order had instructed the NIA to consider using its suo motu powers under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act to take over the investigation into the attack on Adhikari's convoy.
Legal Arguments and State's Contentions
Representing the state, Senior Advocate Kalyan Bandyopadhyay argued against the NIA's involvement, contending that no scheduled offence as per the NIA Act existed in this case. He highlighted that the state police had already registered a First Information Report (FIR) and made arrests, questioning the necessity for central agency intervention.
Justice Bagchi noted that the NIA acted based on the high court's observations in paragraphs 23 and 24 of its order, which suggested considering suo motu powers. However, he advised the state to approach the high court for reconsideration, focusing on whether the materials justify invoking UAPA, particularly regarding impacts on economic security.
The judge pointed out that while the actus reus—such as blockades disrupting goods movement and damaging public property—was not disputed, the intent to harm economic security was contested. Bandyopadhyay argued that the NIA invoked Section 15 of the UAPA, which deals with terrorist acts, without meeting the necessary requirements, as the incident stemmed from public anguish over a migrant worker's death.
NIA's Position and Procedural Delays
Additional Solicitor General S V Raju, appearing for the NIA, asserted that deadly weapons were used, specific communities were targeted, and significant property damage occurred, including shop demolitions and fires using petrol. He emphasized the strategic location near the Bangladesh border as a factor.
Raju also revealed that the state has yet to hand over investigation papers to the NIA, despite the agency registering an FIR. The state police FIR reportedly mentions a mob of 400-500 people and the use of deadly weapons, but Justice Bagchi criticized the NIA's decision to invoke UAPA as "pre-decisional," made without reviewing essential documents like the case diary.
Broader Context and Judicial Observations
Senior Advocate P S Patwalia, representing Suvendu Adhikari, argued that this was not an isolated incident, referencing past violence in the state. Justice Bagchi alluded to a similar case in April 2025, where the NIA did not act on a high court directive to consider suo motu powers, despite a graver situation requiring central armed forces deployment.
The judge stressed that not every emotional outburst can be classified as a threat to economic security, urging a careful examination of intent and evidence. The Supreme Court concluded by directing the state to provide all relevant papers to the NIA, which must then submit an independent report on whether prima facie UAPA conditions are met, for the high court's final determination.
