A police officer interacts with the family members of those arrested by the National Investigation Agency, as part of its probe into the violence that erupted in West Bengal’s Beldanga. File
| Photo Credit: PTI
The Supreme Court on Wednesday (February 11, 2026) questioned the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as to whether it was “fair and just” to invoke the draconian Unlawful Activities (Prevention) (UAPA) Act in the Beldanga violence case in West Bengal without even looking at any material or evidence, and term it as a “terrorist act” affecting the economic security of the nation.
“Is it just and fair to exercise your powers like that? The case diary and other documents were not placed before you. It is a pre-decisional conclusion arrived at without looking at any material, and you say Section 15 (terrorist act) of the UAPA is applicable?” Justice Joymalya Bagchi, a member of the Bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, asked the Central agency’s counsel, Additional Solicitor General S.V. Raju.
Violence erupted in Beldanga on January 16 following the death of a migrant worker hailing from the area in the neighbouring State of Jharkhand. Large numbers of people took to the streets, blocking railway tracks and a National Highway for several hours. At least 12 people were injured in the clashes, and around 30 were arrested for inciting violence.
“Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as affecting economic security,” Justice Bagchi remarked.
The Calcutta High Court had, on January 20, issued various directions on the basis of petitions filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader Suvendu Adhikari and others, including leaving it open to the Central government to conduct investigation by invoking Section 6(5) of the NIA Act.
On January 26, the Union Ministry of Home Affairs had directed the NIA to take up the investigation of the case registered by the Beldanga Police in Murshidabad district under the various statutes, including the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act, the National Highways Act, the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The West Bengal government, represented by senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee and advocate Kunal Mimani, had moved the Supreme Court, arguing that there was no material to attract Section 15 of the UAPA in the case. They submitted that none of the scheduled offences under the UAPA was committed in the case.
Mr. Raju countered that the State government had not passed on the investigation material or case records to the NIA. He submitted that the incident of violence was not an “isolated incident” in the State. Petroleum was used and members of a particular community was targetted in the violence. The law officer said the State Police had a statutory obligation to hand over the case papers. The NIA was conducting an independent probe on the basis of the High Court order.
Justice Bagchi said the NIA has to look into whether the violence may have been an “impromptu expression” of anguish by the people, and not intended to cause economic insecurity. The Bench said the High Court may have to re-examine the issue.
The court ordered the NIA to file a status report in the High Court in a sealed cover after or during its probe as to whether there was prima facie material to make out a case under the UAPA or not.
The High Court was asked to consider the status report, when filed, and pass consequential orders.
Migrant worker from Beldanga ‘died by suicide’ in Jharkhand, says West Bengal Police
“The NIA is active only in the State of West Bengal,” Mr. Banerjee remarked.
“What happens in West Bengal is well-known,” Mr. Raju retorted. To this, Mr. Banerjee reacted: “You will understand after a few days.”
Justice Bagchi intervened to point out that the Supreme Court was only concerned with the legal issues regarding the case. Chief Justice Kant also underscored that the apex court was not delving into the facts of the case.
“The law will take its own course,” Chief Justice Kant observed orally.
The court asked the NIA to approach the High Court to direct the State to pass on the case papers to the Central agency.
Published – February 11, 2026 08:29 pm IST
