New Delhi: The Delhi High Court on Friday refused to entertain a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a National Investigation Agency (NIA) probe into the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" protest over the alleged NEET paper leak, observing that the decision to hand over any investigation to the central agency rests solely with the Central Government.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia said the Court cannot substitute its opinion for the satisfaction that the Centre must record under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.
"See your prayers. It is in respect of issuing direction to NIA to conduct inquiry and investigation etc. That is for authorities to consider if a crime reported has to be probed by State Govt or State Police. So far as your prayer for NIA is concerned, it is for Centre to take a call. It can be suo motu or initiated on report submitted by SHO. We cannot substitute our satisfaction to satisfaction which is to be recorded by Central Government," CJ orally told Petitioner as per the live law report.
The Bench explained that under Section 6, an FIR must first be registered and forwarded to the Centre through the State Government, which then decides whether the case warrants an NIA investigation.
The Court also questioned the maintainability of the PIL, noting that the NIA is an investigating agency, not an inquiry body. While Solicitor General Tushar Mehta sought issuance of notice, the Bench said the legal mechanism already empowers the Centre to refer an appropriate case to the NIA if required.
The petitioner's request for a CBI or SIT probe and a police status report was also declined, with the Court observing that FIRs had already been registered and the investigation should proceed in accordance with law.
The PIL, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, former Vice-President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, alleged that the protest turned into a politically motivated agitation involving foreign-funded organisations, resulting in violence, damage to property, attacks on journalists, and attempts to breach Parliament security.
The petitioner eventually withdrew the PIL. The High Court granted him liberty to submit a representation before the competent authorities, who may consider it in accordance with law.
