In the LPU violence NIA probe question, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has found that Punjab’s affidavit did not indicate that its authorities had taken note of the NIA Act, 2008, and has told the State to send its report on a scheduled offence within 72 hours, with the Centre to decide a week after that whether the National Investigation Agency should take over the case.
Chandigarh: Whether the National Investigation Agency should take over the investigation into the violence at Lovely Professional University (LPU) now rests with the Union government: on Wednesday, after the Punjab Police added the cyber-terrorism offence under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000 to the case, the Punjab and Haryana High Court directed the State to forward a report to the Central Government under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, within 72 hours, and asked the Centre to take a decision within a week thereafter [Ravi Raj v. Union of India and Others].
The order, dated November 4, 2026, was passed by a Division Bench of Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor in a public interest litigation filed by an LPU student seeking transfer of the investigation to the Central Bureau of Investigation under the High Court’s supervision.
What the Bench directed
“we direct the respondent-State to forward the report with regard to commissioning of scheduled offence in terms of section 6 of the 2008 Act, to the Central Government, positively within 72 hours. The Central Government would take an appropriate decision in the matter on the basis of the report submitted by the State Government, within a week thereafter.”
The authorities must place the developments before the Court on the next date. The Bench added that “considering the sensitivity of the issue raised, the concerned investigating agency must deal with the matter with all promptness and seriousness.” The matter is listed on November 17, 2026.
A gap in the State’s affidavit
The Court found a gap in the State’s response:
“The affidavit filed by the respondent-State does not indicate that the State authorities have taken note of the provisions of the 2008 Act.”
How Section 6 works, as argued
Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra, for the petitioner, pointed out that Section 66F of the IT Act has been included in the Schedule to the NIA Act, making it a “scheduled offence” under Section 2(g). Relying on Section 6, he submitted that once information about a scheduled offence is recorded, the police must forward a report to the State Government, which must send it to the Centre “as expeditiously as possible”.
In his reading, the Centre then has 15 days to decide whether the offence is a scheduled offence and whether it is a fit case for the NIA, and if it directs an NIA probe, the State police must stop investigating and hand over the records.
How the case got here
The unrest on the LPU campus began on the night of September 26, 2026. According to the petition, it followed an unverified social media post that circulated among students and made serious allegations about an incident involving a student on campus. The petitioner sought a CBI probe into the violence that followed.
The Bench noted that the Punjab Police had filed status reports stating that the investigation was proceeding. It recorded what the second report said:
“during the course of the investigation, material was prima facie found to indicate applicability of offences under section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, and therefore, such section was also added in the matter.”
ALSO READ: Punjab And Haryana HC Seeks Status Report On Plea For CBI Probe Into LPU Violence
What the order changes
Section 6 of the NIA Act lays down a fixed route once a scheduled offence is recorded: a report goes from the police to the State and then to the Centre, which must decide within 15 days. The State’s affidavit did not reflect this, the Court noted, and by fixing 72 hours and one week for the two steps, the High Court has put the statutory process on a timetable. The order does not itself transfer the probe; the decision rests with the Centre, and the State police continue to investigate until the NIA takes over, if it does.
Case Title: Ravi Raj v. Union of India and Others
Case No.: CWP-PIL-279-2026 (O&M)
Bench: Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, High Court of Punjab and Haryana
Date of Order: November 4, 2026
Next Date: November 17, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate Gaurav Chopra with Advocates Arjun Sheoran, Pranhita Singh, Tejasvi Sheokand and Heena Kadyan for the petitioner; Additional Solicitor General Satya Pal Jain with Advocate Shreyanshi Verma for Union of India; Additional Advocate General Deepender Singh with Senior DAG Salil Sabhlok for Punjab; Special Public Prosecutor Akashdeep Singh with Advocate K.J.S. Bhullar for the CBI; Senior Advocate Aashish Chopra with Advocates Chandandeep Singh, Nitik Sharma and Abhishek Kumar for respondent No. 11; Advocate R.S. Bajaj for respondent No. 9
If you or someone you know is struggling, please reach out to Tele-MANAS, the national mental health helpline, at 14416 or 1-800-891-4416.