Today, On 11th February, The Supreme Court instructed the Calcutta High Court to examine materials submitted by the National Investigation Agency to determine whether invoking the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act was justified in investigating the January 10 attack on Suvendhu Adhikari’s convoy.
The Supreme Court told the Calcutta High Court to carefully examine the materials submitted by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to decide whether the use of the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) was justified in the investigation related to the attack on the convoy of Opposition Leader Suvendhu Adhikari on January 10.
The matter was heard by a bench of Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi while considering a petition filed by the West Bengal government.
The top court directed the NIA to submit all its materials in a sealed cover before the Calcutta High Court.
The state had challenged the Calcutta High Court’s January 20 order that allowed consideration of an NIA probe under Section 6(5) of the NIA Act.
During the hearing, Additional Solicitor General (ASG) SV Raju referred to the lower court proceedings and said,
“First is the order of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate. Can you come to 255? Then you will kindly see 256. Upon presiding it is found that the investigation is in full swing. The evidence is forthcoming and released in the accused at this stage.”
Responding to this, the CJI observed,
“The investigation has been already been entrusted now more than a month back to NIA.”
Justice Bagchi noted another point and said,
“You are missing economic security. Then India’s security territory is likely to strike terror in the people of any section. Again, Mr. Bandhopadhyay, security, and then there is an amendment, economic security.”
He then instructed what should be conveyed before the High Court, stating,
“Go and tell the High Court that this was an incorrect application of mind by the NIA while invoking its suo motu powers under 65A because there is no use of explosive. There was no intention in the nature of the economic security.”
ASG Raju replied,
“Alright, Alright. Kindly pass this order. I am for the victims, my friend. I am for this, and I am a lawyer. In fact, my lord, deadly weapons were used, particular sections of the people were targeted, only a particular section. This is a porous border at the Bangladesh border, and a large number of shops of particular sections were demolished, burnt.”
He also complained that the state police had not cooperated fully, saying,
“They are supposed to hand over the papers of the investigation to us, which they have not, despite the registration of the FIR. Statutorily, they are mandated to hand it over to us.”
Justice Bagchi pointed out the scale of the incident and said,
“Their FIR says more than 500 people. Mr. Raju, the state is in challenge to an order, which does not direct NIA investigation – So, we would request you to look into the materials, to direct the state to hand over the papers and to give your report, as the Hon’ble Chief Justice indicates, on your independent investigation also, whether prima facie ingredients of 15 are disclosed or not.”
Senior Advocate Patwalia, appearing for Suvendu Adhikari, was also addressed by Justice Bagchi, who said,
“Mr. Patwalia, we have seen it happened on April 25, and that is also a very important thing for the High Court to consider because in April 25, the High Court division bench directed NIA to consider the invocation of their powers under 6.5. but NIA slept over it.”
The CJI recorded the factual position and said,
“It is a matter of record that, pursuant to the discretionary option given by the High Court, in the interim order dated 28th January 2026, as directed the National Investigating Agency to take up the investigation of the case FIR No. 0051, dated 17.01.2026, registered by West Bengal Police at Police Station Joladanga, District Mushidabad, Mushidabad, so it has been re-registered and cognizance has been taken.”
He then issued three major directions:
- We will not examine Section 15 applicability at this preliminary stage. We will not stay the NIA takeover. and The record must be handed over.
- NIA must submit report before the High Court. it will be to direct the national investigating agencies to submit the report from a post-investigation or during the course of investigation. to give the papers to the NIA report, but also our consideration.
- High Court will examine prima facie ingredients and Maintainability remains open.
At one point, Senior Advocate Bandhopadhyay raised objections, saying, “Very unfair.”
The CJI responded,
“Unfair is on your part. No, no. What unfair state of West Bengal is concerned.”
ASG Raju added,
“No, no, I am sorry. Don’t don’t. We are here deciding a resolution. I understand, but only in the state of West Bengal NIA is acting. That’s point. What happens there is also well known what happens in the I am sorry to say.”
The CJI concluded firmly,
“Let NIA go over the High Court and told that we need a decision.”
In a key clarification, the court added that the Chief Justice of India said that West Bengal has filed a separate writ petition (WP) in the Supreme Court challenging the Centre’s order dated January 28, 2026, which handed over the investigation to the NIA.
The CJI also said that “the legality of that order can be considered by the High Court, which is already handling related matters.”
Case Title: THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL Vs SUVENDU ADHIKARI | SLP(Crl) No. 2369/2026