In a pivotal decision rendered on Tuesday, the Supreme Court declined the National Investigation Agency’s (NIA) plea challenging a recent FIR initiated by Chhattisgarh police in 2020. This fresh investigation probes deeper into the alleged political machinations behind the Maoist attack in Bastar that claimed the lives of numerous senior Congress leaders in 2013. The judicial proceedings unfolded before a bench led by CJI DY Chandrachud, accompanied by Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra.
The NIA’s legal challenge contested the Chhattisgarh High Court’s March 2, 2022 decision, wherein it refused to annul the second FIR or transfer the case to the NIA for further examination. Initially, the central investigative agency had presented a quashing/transfer plea before a Special NIA Court in Chhattisgarh, meeting rejection.
Presenting the NIA’s case, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju emphasized the gravity of the 2013 incident, where Naxalites claimed the lives of 28 individuals and left 33 injured. Raju argued that an initial FIR had been filed by local authorities, and due to the involvement of explosives, it became a scheduled offense under the NIA Act. He informed the bench that the NIA had been tasked with investigating the Bastar ambush by an order from the Central Government in 2013. However, in 2020, almost seven years later, the state police initiated a new FIR concerning the same incident, delving into suspicions of a broader conspiracy prompted by a fresh informant. ASG Raju contended that the ‘larger conspiracy’ allegation is inherently linked and should be investigated by the NIA as per Section 8 of the NIA Act. Following the second FIR in 2020, NIA had written to the Special Judge, urging the cessation of the local police investigation and the transfer of documents to NIA, invoking Section 8 of the NIA Act.
Contrarily, the complainant’s counsel argued that the second FIR did not relate to a “connected offense.” He asserted that the initial FIR solely addressed the convoy attack, while the second FIR focused on the “deliberate lack of security,” an aspect overlooked in the first FIR. Referring to a Supreme Court three-judge bench ruling, the counsel contended that a second FIR could be considered in cases involving a larger conspiracy.
Senior Advocate Atmaram Nadkarni, representing the State of Chhattisgarh, accused the NIA of obstructing the investigation, stating that the trial court rightfully rejected their application. He questioned the NIA’s decision to approach the trial court for a transfer when Sections 6 and 8 were already in place, insinuating an unwillingness to investigate. Nadkarni highlighted the national significance of the case, suggesting that the NIA sought to impede the state’s inquiry and obtain control over the documents. He emphasized that conspiracy, in itself, constitutes a standalone offense, and the incident could indeed be part of a larger conspiracy.
Ultimately, the bench declared its non-interference in the matter.
In May 2013, Maoist insurgents launched an assault on a convoy of Congress leaders in Chhattisgarh, resulting in the death of 27 individuals, including top state leaders of the party. Allegations of political conspiracy arose from the Congress, claiming that the attack, occurring during the BJP-led governance, was orchestrated. The State police initiated the FIR based on a complaint by the son of a deceased Congress leader.
[Case Reference: National Investigation Agency New Delhi v The State Of Chhattisgarh And Ors SLP(Crl) No. 7024/2022
