THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. versus SUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS.

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 842 · Decided: 24-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.Y. CHANDRACHUD · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
842
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.
v.
SUVENDU ADHIKARI & ORS.
(Special Leave Petitions (Criminal) Nos. 6283-6286 of 2023)
JULY 24, 2023
[DR. DHANANJAYA Y. CHANDRACHUD, CJI,
J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
National Investigating Agency Act, 2008 – s.6(5) – Exercise
of Jurisdiction u/s. 6(5) – Six FIRs were registered between
30.03.2023 to 03.04.2023 in relation to different incidents – Acting
on a Public Interest Litigation, High Court by its order held that the
allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive
Substances Act, and held that the entire investigation should be
transferred to the National Investigation Agency with a direction to
the Central Government to exercise their power u/s 6(5) Act of 2008
– Central Government issued notification in exercise of its power u/
s. 6(5) – Pursuant thereto, Six FIRs registered on 10.05.2023 and
cognizance taken by Special Court – On appeal, held: The NIA has
exercised its jurisdiction specifically with reference to its powers
under Section 6(5) – The precise contours of the investigation which
should be carried out by the NIA cannot be anticipated or restricted
at present stage – Cognizance also taken by NIA Court – The
judgment of High Court affirmed – SLP disposed of.
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special
Leave Petition (Criminal) Nos. 6283-6286 of 2023.
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.04.2023 of the High Court
at Calcutta in WPA (P) Nos.151, 154, 156 and 162 of 2023.
Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Gopal Shankarnarayan, Sr. Advs.,
Sanjay Basu, Amit Bhandari, Nipun Saxena, Srisatya Mohanty, Ms. Aditi
Gupta, Ms. Anju Thomas, Sanjeev Kaushik, Ms. Mantika Haryani,
Shreyas Awasthi, Himanshu Chakravarty, Ms. Ripul Swati Kumari,
Bhanu Mishra, Ms. Muskan Surana, Saransh Bhardwaj, Archit Adlakha,
Ms. Soumya Saxena, Aditya Raj Pandey, Ms. Astha Sharma, Advs. for
the Petitioners.
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 842 : 2023 INSC 647
842
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
843
Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General, P. S. patwalia, Sr. Adv., Pranab
Prakash, Abhishek Sarkar, Ms. Bansuri Swaraj, Siddhesh Kotwal, Ms.
Ana Upadhyay, Ms. Manya Hasija, Nihar Dharmadhikari, Tejasvi Gupta,
Ms. Mahamaya Chatterjee, Lokenath Chatterjee, Rahul Sharma,
Nirnimesh Dube, Kanu Agarwal, Anmol Chandan, Ashok Panigrahi, Ms.
Sansriti Pathak, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Siddhesh Shirish Kotwal, Advs.
for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DR. DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD, CJI
1. Six first information reports were registered by the Police in
the State of West Bengal. Details of these first information reports have
been tabulated in a statement which has been furnished by the State of
West Bengal :
2. Acting on a Public Interest Litigation, a Division Bench of the
High Court of Judicature at Calcutta by its order dated 27 April 2023
held that the allegations implicate offences punishable under the Explosive
Substances Act. Hence, the High Court held that this is a fit case where
the entire investigation should be transferred to the National Investigation
Agency with a direction to the Central Government to exercise their
THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS. v. SUVENDU ADHIKARI &
ORS.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
844
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigating Agency Act 2008.
3. The proceedings were thus disposed of by the High Court by
directing the State police to ensure that all the FIRs, documents, material
seized and CCTV footage, among other things, should be immediately
handed over to the NIA which shall commence investigation and proceed
in accordance with law. The police authorities of the State of West Bengal
were directed to hand over all material to the NIA within two weeks.
4. During the course of hearing, we have heard Mr Gopal
Sankarnarayan, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West
Bengal, Mr Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General of India appearing on behalf
of the NIA, Mr PS Patwalia, senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
original petitioner before the High Court and Ms Bansuri Swaraj, counsel
appearing on behalf of an intervenor who had filed a complaint arising
out of the incidents in question.
5. The principal submissions which have been urged on behalf of
the petitioners are :
(i)
Six FIRs were registered by the police in relation to six different
incidents spanning four distinct dates;
(ii) The High Court has dwelt at considerable length on the
previous orders which it passed for transf
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.