'Every emotional outburst can't be treated as threat to economic security': SC on NIA probe into violence in WB

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Wednesday said that every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security, as it questioned the basis on which the National Investigation Agency cited provisions under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) to justify its probe into the recent violence at West Bengal's Beldanga.

A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi, however, asked the West Bengal government to raise its contention before the Calcutta High Court order, which allowed the Centre to deploy central armed forces after violent unrest in Beldanga, Murshidabad, in mid-January 2026. The disturbance resulted in arson and damage to public property.

Additional Solicitor General S V Raju for the NIA contended that there was strong basis for a probe. 

He said that this is a porous border near Bangladesh and there was violence and deadly weapons were used, and the NIA is doing independent investigation but the state is not handing over probe papers. 

He asked the court to direct the state to hand over the papers.

Opposing the plea, the West Bengal government counsel said, "Only in West Bengal, the NIA Is active".

The bench said, "Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security." 

The court pointed out that with reference to the earlier attack in April, last year, there was a direction by the division bench of the high court to NIA to consider the probe, but the NIA "slept over it”.

"What was necessity for the NIA without even looking into the records to initiate this FIR or its power, we are not making any comment, it is for high court to examine,” the bench said.

The NIA claimed that the violence had affected the economic security of India and was thus, there was a terrorist act under Section 15, UAPA. 

Another counsel contended that the high court said the NIA should take a decision. "Actually, it is an economically strategic highway and therefore, it is blocked,” the counsel said.

The bench said that it was the best if the Calcutta High Court resolves the issue, after examining what the NIA has to say about the case in a report to be submitted in a sealed cover. 

"Whether UAPA should be invoked or not...We will ask the NIA to submit a report on this in sealed cover (to the high court)," the bench said.

The bench suggested the state government counsel, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, that the state can say there was no use of explosives and that there was no intention to affect economic security, and the state can tell the high court that NIA invoked its power incorrectly.

The court asked the NIA to submit a report on its investigation status before the high court in a sealed cover. 

"Since there are passing observations in high court order (January 20 order) without any documentary evidence, we request high court to consider the NIA report independently and issue consequent decisions...It is further directed that the plea by West Bengal shall be heard by a division bench headed by Chief Justice of the high court, before whom the earlier plea is pending," the court said.

On January 20, 2026, the high court had allowed the deployment of central forces following two public interest litigation petitions filed by Suvendu Adhikari, the Leader of Opposition in West Bengal, and a resident of Beldanga.

Both the petitions sought the NIA investigation and the deployment of central forces in response to communal violence, arson, and destruction of public and private property in Murshidabad and adjacent border areas.