'A well-considered order, NIA already registered cases': Supreme Court refuses to stay Calcutta HC order directing NIA probe into Ram Navami violence

NEW DELHI: A day after failing to sustain its ban on screening of 'Kerala story', the West Bengal government suffered another setback as the Supreme Court refused to stay an order of the Calcutta High Court directing NIA probe into violent attacks on Ramnavami procession at Howrah's Shibpur, Hoogly's Rishra and Uttar Dinajpur's Dalkhola areas on March 30.
The TMC government through senior advocates A M SInghvi and Gopal Shankaranarayanan told a bench of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justices P S Narasimha and K V Viswanthan that the HC mechanically ordered NIA probe on a PIL filed by BJP leader Suvendu Adhikari even when the scheduled offences under NIA Act are not made out in five of the six FIRs. "Let the one FIR which disclosed scheduled offence be transferred to NIA and others be probed by state police," Singhvi submitted.
But, the CJI-led bench said, "The investigations have already been transferred through a well considered judgment by the HC. WE will consider your (West Bengal government's) submissions in its entirety in July. But, today it is not a case where we can stultify the HC order. All incidents virtually pertain to the same kind of religious procession."
Solicitor general Tushar Mehta, appearing for the NIA, informed the court that though the agency has registered cases following the HC order, the West Bengal police are not giving the agency the relevant case documents to impede the probe. "How can they hold on to papers when the NIA is investigating by citing that the state's appeal is pending in the Supreme Court," the SG asked and requested the court to specify that there is no stay to allay apprehensions that the state police still would not give the papers.
When senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and P S Patwalia, who appeared for Adhikari, joined SG in telling the court that the state police is not cooperating with NIA in furthering the investigations, the bench said, "We will hear the petition after summer vacation. Why should we say we have not stayed the HC order when we are not staying it." The court also did not make any observation on Singhvi's repeated pleas that the NIA should not take coercive steps or summon police officials.
Casting “serious doubts” on Bengal police’s investigations, the HC on April 27 had directed the police to hand over all case records to the NIA within two weeks. Adhikari and three others had moved the HC seeking an NIA probe. A bench of acting CJ TS Sivagnanam and Justice Hiranmay Bhattacharyya observed that the nature of offences mentioned in the police reports on the clashes fell under the definition of scheduled offences defined in the NIA Act.
Singhvi reiterated in SC the state advocate general's argument before the HC that it was not required for the NIA to investigate all scheduled offences, but only those that affected the sovereignty, security and integrity of the country. The HC had pointed out that the police reports had mentioned “displaying of firearms with an aim to kill police personnel” while the seizure lists included “bamboo sticks, iron rods, stones, bricks, swords, glass bottles” among others. On the basis of these reports, it was evident that despite offences under the NIA Act, no such case was registered, the HC had said.