The Gavel of Review: Apex Court to Revisit the Legislative Competence of the NIA Act
(By Syed Ali Taher Abedi)
NEW DELHI – In a development with profound implications for India’s federal structure, the Supreme Court of India today issued a formal notice to the Central Government regarding a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) challenging the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act, 2008.
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta presided over the matter. The petition argues that the NIA Act is “arbitrary” and represents an unconstitutional encroachment by the Union into the exclusive legislative and executive domain of State Governments.
The Core Argument: “Police Power” vs. “Central Oversight”
Appearing for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave mounted a sharp attack on the statutory framework of the NIA.
He contended that under the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, “Police” and “Public Order” fall strictly under the State List (Entry 2).
Dave argued that while other central agencies like the Enforcement Directorate (ED) or the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) have specific administrative mandates, the NIA Act uniquely vests the “complete powers of a police officer” in its officials.
He specifically drew the Court’s attention to Section 6(5) of the Act, which empowers the Central Government to direct Suo motu investigations by the NIA.
“In such a situation, the State’s power to investigate is completely ousted,” Dave emphasized, arguing that Parliament lacks the legislative competence to create a national police force with overriding powers over State police departments.
The Petitioner’s Grievance: A Tale of Two Investigations
The PIL was filed by a Kerala-based advocate who was previously embroiled in legal proceedings related to the Popular Front of India (PFI). The petitioner’s grievance stems from a specific procedural overlap:
The State Case: The Kerala Police had investigated the 2022 killing of a BJP activist, filing a final report against 43 accused.
The NIA Takeover: While committal proceedings were pending, the Union invoked Section 6(5) and Section 8 of the NIA Act, directing the federal agency to take over and club the state case with its own wider investigation into PFI activities (RC-2/2022).
The petitioner contends that the NIA’s invocation of these powers rendered the State’s completed investigation redundant, despite the State Police finding no evidence of “scheduled offences” in their initial final report.
The Union’s Stance and Legal Context
Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Union, was present as the Court sought the Government’s formal response.
The petition, filed through Advocate-on-Record Vishnu P., seeks a radical remedy either to strike down the NIA Act as unconstitutional or, alternatively, to direct the Union to frame stringent guidelines to prevent the “unbridled” exercise of Suo motu investigative powers.
This is not the first time the NIA Act has faced such scrutiny. In 2020, the State of Chhattisgarh filed an original suit challenging the Act’s validity, and several petitions are currently pending in the Apex Court challenging the 2019 Amendment to the Act.
What’s at Stake?
By entertaining this PIL, the Supreme Court has signalled its intent to examine whether the NIA Act disrupts the “basic structure” of the Constitution specifically the principle of federalism. The Centre’s response will be pivotal in determining if the exigencies of national security can constitutionally override the traditional boundaries of State-led policing.
