New Delhi: Represented by Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, the central government Friday came out in support of a Public Interest Litigation in the Delhi High Court seeking an investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) or any other specialised agency into the 20 July ‘Sansad Chalo’ March organised by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP).
According to Delhi-based petitioner Satish Kumar Aggarwal, the protest was an attempt to block Parliament House, and was funded by foreign organisations and political actors in the intent of a larger conspiracy.
During the hour-long hearing, Mehta nudged a bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia to issue notice. Towards the end of the hearing, however, when the bench expressed its reluctance to entertain the plea, Mehta advised the petitioner to withdraw his petition. This was done after the bench said the petitioner had liberty to approach the government or file a representation.
The crux of the detailed hearing—continuing before and after the lunch break—was about the court’s authority to order an NIA probe. The court asked the petitioner to explain how the court could give its opinion on a case which can only proceed after the central government’s nod. It also posed questions about the power of the NIA—not an enquiry agency but an investigative agency—and its mechanisms that require a First Information Report to be set into motion.
Under the NIA Act, cases fit for it to probe are detailed in the law. Section 6 states that the state police must forward the initial crime report of a scheduled offence to the state government, which then sends it to the central government. The Centre decides within 15 days of receiving the report whether it is a fit case for the NIA to handle. The same section also talks about the suo motu powers, where the Central government can independently order the NIA to take over and investigate a scheduled offence without waiting for a state report.
Chief Justice Upadhyaya noted that the power entrusted with the Central government—to opine on the case’s fitness for an NIA probe—cannot be exercised by the court.
The petitioner also relied on the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgement in the Padmaavat film ban case, which contextually mandated state governments to maintain public order.
The court noted that the Delhi Police Establishment Act establishes the mechanism that the CBI can take over or be directed by the court to take over only if the course of investigation by the primary agency is unsatisfactory.
On Additional Solicitor General Chetan Sharma’s push for issuing notice on the PIL and asking for a status report from the government, the court noted that the government had all the powers under the NIA Act. The Solicitor General also said that the petitioners of Thursday seeking probe into the police brutality and of the PIL on Friday are opposites, and, thus, the entire picture should come up in the “realm of the public law doctrine”.
The court was not convinced; the investigation was in the primary stages, it said, noting that the FIR was filed two days ago. The court gave the liberty to the petitioner to represent his concerns before the government.
(Edited by Nardeep Singh Dahiya)
Also Read: CJP protest isn’t another Anna movement. It’s something Modi govt doesn’t know how to fight