A bench comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta passed the direction on Tuesday after Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati, representing the Centre, sought more time to file a counter affidavit. The petitioner has been permitted to submit a rejoinder within two weeks after receiving the government’s response.
The case will be listed for further hearing after six weeks. The order extends the timetable in a proceeding that raises questions about Parliament’s authority to establish an agency with powers to investigate offences within states without requiring their prior consent.
Senior advocate Siddharth Dave, appearing for the petitioner, informed the court that notice had been issued in the matter on April 21. At that hearing, the bench sought responses from the Centre, the National Investigation Agency and other parties, while observing that the issues raised were of vital importance.
The petition seeks to have the NIA Act set aside on the grounds that it violates Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees equality before the law, and exceeds the Centre’s legislative competence. It argues that policing and public order are primarily matters assigned to states under the constitutional division of powers.
A central point of dispute is Section 6 of the Act, which sets out the procedure for investigating scheduled offences. State governments are required to forward reports on qualifying offences to the Centre, which can then decide whether the case should be investigated by the NIA.
Section 6 also allows the Centre to act on its own information. It may direct the NIA to investigate a scheduled offence if it concludes that such an offence has been committed and requires investigation under the Act. The petition contends that this power enables the Centre to displace state police agencies without consent.
The challenge therefore places the law at the intersection of national security and federalism. The Centre is expected to argue that terrorism and offences with national or international consequences require a unified investigative framework capable of operating across state boundaries.
The NIA was established after the November 2008 Mumbai attacks, in which 166 people were killed. Parliament enacted the law to create a specialised federal agency for investigating terrorism, threats to national security and offences affecting sovereignty and territorial integrity.
The agency’s mandate covers crimes listed in the Act’s schedule. These include offences under anti-terrorism, explosives, atomic energy, maritime security, weapons of mass destruction, hijacking and unlawful activities laws. The schedule has been expanded since the legislation was enacted.
Amendments passed in 2019 widened the agency’s jurisdiction and the range of offences it could investigate. The changes added human trafficking, counterfeit currency, prohibited arms, cyber-terrorism and attacks involving explosive substances to the categories that may be taken up by the NIA.
The amendments also authorised the agency to investigate scheduled offences committed outside the country, subject to international treaties and the domestic laws of the nation concerned. Such cases may be treated as though the offence occurred within the country for purposes of investigation and trial.
Supporters of the legislation maintain that terror networks, illicit financing, cyber operations and organised extremist groups frequently operate across multiple jurisdictions. They argue that investigations can be impeded when evidence, suspects and financial trails are spread across several states.
Critics say the Act gives the executive broad discretion to assume control of investigations ordinarily conducted by state police. They contend that the constitutional allocation of police powers cannot be diluted merely by classifying offences as having national implications.
The legal dispute is likely to require examination of entries in the Union, State and Concurrent Lists, as well as Parliament’s powers to legislate on criminal law, national security and matters affecting the sovereignty of the country.
