.
NEW DELHI: In a setback to Bengal govt on the eve of polls, Supreme Court Monday refused to entertain the state’s plea challenging the Centre’s decision to order NIA probe into the Beldanga violence in Murshidabad district in Jan.Appearing for the state, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee told a bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi that NIA could not have been entrusted with the probe when the incidents did not warrant invocation of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).The bench said whether UAPA provisions could be slapped on the accused persons would be determined by the HC after perusing the report NIA is due to submit.
Israel Iran War
Banerjee persisted, asking how NIA could register the FIR under UAPA when the investigation by West Bengal Police into the violence did not show any offence which could attract the provisions of the anti-unlawful activities Act.Calcutta HC had on Jan 20, in response to a plea seeking NIA probe filed by LoP in West Bengal Suvendu Adhikari, directed the Centre to entrust the investigation into the Jan 16-17 violence in Beldanga and adjoining parts of Murshidabad district to NIA. The CJI-led bench said the HC would decide the correctness of invocation of UAPA against accused in the violent incidents during protests against the death of migrant worker Alauddin Sheikh in Jharkhand after perusing the NIA report. HC would hear all parties during consideration of the NIA report, it said and dismissed the state’s appeal.A similar petition by the Mamata Banerjee govt challenging Calcutta HC’s Jan 20 order giving discretion to the Centre to entrust the probe to NIA was disposed of by the CJI-led bench on Feb 11. The order had said, “We do not deem it appropriate to express any opinion on the merits of this matter at this decidedly premature stage.“It will instead suffice to direct the NIA to submit its report, post-investigation or during the course of investigation, before the division bench of the HC in a sealed cover as to whether on the basis of the material/information gathered by it, any prima facie case for investigation under provisions of UAP Act is made out or not.”CJI Kant and Justice Bagchi had said, “Since there are only passing observations in the impugned order of the HC, without any definite opinion in relation to attraction of UAPA, we request HC to consider status report/report to be submitted by NIA independently after hearing the parties.”
