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 held over the alleged NEET paper leak. The court made it clear that the decision to hand over an investigation to the NIA rests with the Central Government and not the judiciary.
A division bench of Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that under Section 6 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, the NIA can be directed to investigate a case only after the Central Government records its satisfaction. The bench said the court cannot substitute its own satisfaction for that of the Centre while deciding whether an NIA investigation is warranted, Live Law and Bar & Bench report.
Court draws a clear line on NIA powers
During the hearing, the bench told petitioner Satish Kumar Aggarwal that his request for an NIA investigation could not be granted by the court. "It is for the Centre to take a call. It can be suo motu or initiated on the report submitted by the SHO. We cannot substitute our satisfaction for the satisfaction to be recorded by the Central Government," the Chief Justice orally observed.
Also Watch:
The court further noted that if a crime has been reported, it is for the competent authorities to decide whether it should be investigated by the state police or referred to the NIA. The judges emphasised that the legal mechanism for such a referral is already available under the law.
Interestingly, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Central Government, urged the court to issue notice in the matter, saying it raised issues in the realm of public law. However, the bench declined to do so, stating that its refusal to entertain the PIL did not restrict the government's powers. The court remarked that if the Centre wished to refer the investigation to the NIA, it was free to do so under the existing legal framework and should act as required by law.
Petition withdrawn after court's observations
Following the court's observations, the petitioner withdrew the PIL.
The plea had been filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, a former vice president of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha. It alleged that the July 20 agitation was part of a larger conspiracy involving foreign-funded organisations and political actors, and sought an NIA investigation into the matter.
At the outset of the hearing, the court questioned how it could direct the NIA to investigate when the agency is empowered to probe only scheduled offences under the law. The bench's observations reinforced the legal position that while the Centre has the authority to involve the NIA, the courts cannot compel such a decision in the absence of the statutory process being followed.
