Supreme Court seeks Central government's response to plea challenging validity of NIA Act

The Supreme Court on Tuesday issued notice to the Union government on a plea challenging the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 (NIA Act) [Mohammed Mubarak AI Versus Union Of India And Ors.].

A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said the issues raised in the plea involved questions of wide national importance concerning the powers exercised by the National Investigation Agency (NIA).

“If NIA doesn’t have power to register FIR, what would be the result of your investigation? Are their officers considered to be police officers? How do you file a chargesheet? Is there any notification to that effect? These are questions of vital importance affecting the entire country,” the Bench observed during the hearing.

It directed the Centre to file its counter affidavit within four weeks. The petitioner has been granted two weeks thereafter to file a rejoinder affidavit.

The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 14.

The plea has been filed by a Kerala-based lawyer who is presently arrayed as an accused in a case registered by the NIA in connection with alleged unlawful activities linked to members of the Popular Front of India (PFI).

According to the plea, the petitioner was arrested in December 2022 after the NIA took over the investigation into offences allegedly committed by leaders and members of the organisation. He remained in custody for nearly one year and five months before being granted bail by the Kerala High Court in June 2024.

Against this backdrop, the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court challenging the constitutional validity of the NIA Act, contending that the very framework enabling the NIA to take over investigations violates constitutional principles.

A central argument raised in the plea is that the NIA Act violates the federal structure of the Constitution by enabling the Union government to create an investigative agency that overrides the powers of State police forces.

The plea contends that “police” is a subject falling under Entry 2 of the State List, and therefore Parliament lacked legislative competence to create a central investigative agency with overriding powers over State police.

It further argues that the Act enables the Centre to direct investigations within States without obtaining their consent, thereby undermining the constitutional distribution of powers between the Union and the States.

The petitioner has also challenged provisions under Sections 6 to 10 of the NIA Act, contending that they confer unbridled and unguided powers on the Central government to take over investigations without adequate safeguards.

According to the plea, such powers result in the creation of what is described as a parallel national police structure, which allegedly encroaches upon the exclusive jurisdiction of State governments in matters relating to public order and policing.

The plea also contends that the registration of the FIR, the subsequent investigation, and filing of the final report by the NIA in the petitioner’s case caused grave prejudice to him, particularly since the State police had earlier investigated the matter without alleging the commission of any scheduled offence.

In light of these submissions, the petitioner has sought a declaration that the NIA Act is unconstitutional for violating Articles 14, 20 and 21 of the Constitution and for undermining the federal character of the constitutional framework.

Senior Advocate Siddhartha Dave and advocate Vishnu P appeared for the petitioner.

[Read Order]