New Delhi, July 24 (SocialNews.XYZ) The Delhi High Court on Friday allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) seeking a direction to the National Investigation Agency (NIA), or any other specialised investigating agency, to probe the alleged attempt to breach security near Parliament during the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" protest over the alleged NEET paper leak.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia permitted the petitioner to withdraw the plea with liberty to avail other remedies available under the law after observing that the statutory framework under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, leaves the decision on an NIA probe to the Central government.
"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 Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed," the CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench ordered.
During the hearing, the Delhi High Court repeatedly observed that the NIA is an investigating agency and not an inquiry body, and that its jurisdiction can be invoked only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Section 6 of the NIA Act.
"Tell us what is the statutory mechanism for invoking NIA jurisdiction... NIA is not an inquiry agency. It is an investigation agency... There has to be an FIR. Thereafter the whole procedure is prescribed. How can you ask us to first get an inquiry conducted and then ask them to conduct an investigation by the NIA?" the CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench orally observed.
It said that after registration of an FIR, the officer concerned has to forward the report through the prescribed channel before the Central government decides whether the case merits investigation by the NIA. "You are asking us to form an opinion that this is a fit case for NIA investigation. That is the job of the Central government. Can we substitute our satisfaction to the satisfaction of the Central government?" the Delhi High Court remarked.
Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Barun Kumar Sinha argued that the case involved the "gravity of offence and other relevant factors" under Section 6(3) of the NIA Act and warranted investigation by a specialised agency. He also submitted that roads had been blocked, Metro stations were closed, and there had been violations of fundamental rights during the protest.
However, the Delhi High Court remained unconvinced, reiterating that the decision to entrust a case to the NIA lies exclusively with the Central government under the statutory framework. It also declined the petitioner's request for a status report from the police, observing that FIRs had been registered only a few days earlier and that the authorities were already seized of the matter.
During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that if the petitioner was seeking investigation by any other specialised agency, notice could be issued in the matter.
However, the CJ Upadhyaya-led Bench observed that the choice of the investigating agency was for the competent authorities to decide in accordance with law.
The PIL, filed by Satish Kumar Aggarwal, claimed that the July 20 "Sansad Chalo" march, organised over the alleged NEET paper leak, turned into an attempt to block access to Parliament and resulted in obstruction of public movement, damage to public and private property, attacks on journalists and injuries to police personnel.
The petition, filed by Aggarwal, an ex-Vice President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha, sought directions for registration of an FIR, a comprehensive investigation into the July 20 protest and, if warranted, transfer of the probe to a specialised agency, including the NIA.
According to the plea, the "Sansad Chalo" march organised over the alleged NEET paper leak witnessed obstruction of public movement, damage to public and private property, assaults on journalists, attempts to breach security arrangements near Parliament House, and injuries to police personnel and other public officials.
It further alleged that the participation of political leaders, activists and certain organisations raised concerns regarding the true nature of the protest and warranted an impartial investigation into whether any organised or external elements were involved in activities prejudicial to public order, national security and the sovereignty and integrity of India.
Source: IANS
About Gopi
Gopi Adusumilli is a Programmer. He is the editor of SocialNews.XYZ and President of AGK Fire Inc.
He enjoys designing websites, developing mobile applications and publishing news articles on current events from various authenticated news sources.
When it comes to writing he likes to write about current world politics and Indian Movies. His future plans include developing SocialNews.XYZ into a News website that has no bias or judgment towards any.
He can be reached at gopi@socialnews.xyz