NEET Paper Leak Protest | Delhi High Court Says Decision On NIA Probe Lies With Centre, Allows PIL Withdrawal

The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the power to entrust a case to the NIA lies within the statutory framework under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, and cannot be assumed by the Court.

Advocate Barun Kumar Sinha appeared for the petitioner, while Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma, and Central Government Standing Counsel Ashish Dixit appeared for the Union.

At the outset, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta suggested that notice be issued and the matter be tagged with connected petitions.

During the hearing, the Bench questioned the maintainability of the writ petition, asking the petitioner to identify the statutory provision empowering the Court to direct an NIA investigation. "Show us the statutory mechanism. NIA is an investigating agency, not an inquiry agency. At this stage, if there is an FIR, the remedy lies under Section 6 of the NIA Act. How is this writ petition maintainable?" the Chief Justice asked.

The petitioner submitted that the Court could direct an investigation either by the NIA or any other specialised agency, contending that the gravity of the incident justified such a course.

The Bench, however, pointed out that Section 6 of the NIA Act prescribes a specific statutory procedure once an FIR is registered. "Section 6 requires an FIR. The statute lays down the procedure thereafter. How can we first order an inquiry and then direct an NIA investigation?" the Court observed.

When the petitioner relied on Section 6(3) of the NIA Act, arguing that the incident had nationwide ramifications and warranted intervention by a specialised agency, the Bench reiterated that the determination must be made by the Central Government.

"Whether a case deserves an NIA probe depends on the statutory process... The Centre can also refer a matter to the NIA suo motu under Section 6," the Court observed.

The petitioner also relied upon the Supreme Court's Padmaavat judgment to contend that the Court could intervene.

Rejecting the contention, Chief Justice Upadhyaya clarified: "The Padmaavat judgment only summarises the legal principles applicable in such situations."

As the petitioner argued that the protests had disrupted public life, resulting in road blockades and closure of metro stations, the Chief Justice responded: "Don't confuse the issues."

The Bench further remarked: "Look at your prayers. You seek directions for an NIA inquiry and investigation. Whether a crime is investigated by the State Police or the NIA is for the competent authorities to decide."

It added: "As far as an NIA probe is concerned, it is for the Centre to take a call, either suo motu or on the basis of an SHO's report."

Emphasising the limits of judicial intervention under the statutory framework, the Court held: "We cannot substitute our satisfaction for the satisfaction that the Central Government is required to record under the NIA Act."

The Bench also observed that courts could not order investigations solely on the basis of photographs or videos placed before them.

"An inquiry has to be conducted under the supervision of the appropriate authority. We cannot issue directions merely by looking at photographs and videos. Let the authorities form their opinion first. The question is one of following the law and the statutory framework."

Following the Court's observations, counsel for the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition with liberty to pursue other remedies available under law.

Allowing the request, the Bench ordered: "Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be constrained to withdraw the petition, with liberty to take recourse to any other legal remedy which may be available to him under law, including the remedy of approaching the authorities concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed."