The Supreme Court of India on Tuesday sought a response from the Centre on a petition challenging the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, observing that the issues raised were of “vital importance.”
A Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta issued notice to the Centre, the National Investigation Agency (NIA), and the Kerala government. The Bench also raised a key question: “Without being a police station, can the NIA register an FIR?”
The petition has been filed by Kerala-based advocate Mohammed Mubarak A.I., who was arrested in December 2022 after the NIA took over a matter involving alleged activities of the Popular Front of India (PFI). He remained in custody for over a year before being granted bail by the Kerala High Court in June 2024.
The court has granted four weeks to the Centre, the NIA, and the Kerala government to file their responses, and two weeks thereafter for the petitioner to submit a rejoinder. The matter has been scheduled for hearing on July 14 after the court reopens following the summer vacation.
Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Siddhartha Dave referred to provisions of the Act, particularly Section 6(5), which allows the Centre to direct the NIA to investigate scheduled offences suo motu. The Bench noted that the government would need to clarify the legal basis for such powers, including the agency’s authority to register FIRs independently.
The petitioner’s central argument is that the NIA Act violates the federal structure of the Constitution by enabling the Union government to override the powers of State police forces. The plea contends that “police” falls under the State List, and therefore Parliament lacks competence to create a central agency with overriding jurisdiction in this domain.
It further challenges Sections 6 to 10 of the Act, alleging that they grant excessive and unguided powers to the Centre, allowing it to take over investigations within States without their consent. This, the plea argues, effectively creates a parallel national police framework, undermining State autonomy in matters of public order and policing.
The petition also seeks to declare the Act unconstitutional on the grounds that it violates fundamental rights under Articles 14, 20, and 21, and disrupts the constitutional balance of federalism.