Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the Central Government's orders under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act transferring to the NIA the investigation of Punjab NDPS cases against the petitioner as offences connected with a Gujarat narco-terror case in which Sections 17 and 18 UAPA were invoked, holding that 'the accused' in Section 8 is not confined to persons already being investigated for the Scheduled Offence. It also upheld the cancellation of his bail, and added observations on the menace of drug abuse.
Issues
- Whether Section 8 of the NIA Act permits the NIA to investigate non-scheduled offences committed by a person who is not an accused in the Scheduled Offence under investigation, if those offences are connected with it.
- Whether the Central Government's orders directing the NIA to investigate the Punjab NDPS FIRs against the petitioner were valid under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 of the NIA Act.
- Whether the High Court rightly cancelled the bail granted to the petitioner on the NIA's application.
Provisions considered
- Section 8, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008The NIA, while investigating a Scheduled Offence, may investigate any other offence connected with it. The Court read 'the accused' contextually and purposively to include any other accused whose connected offence emerges during the investigation, connection with the Scheduled Offence being the essential condition. (¶¶ 5, 5.8, 7, 7.1, 7.4, 7.5, 7.6, 7.9, 7.11, 7.13, 7.16, 7.17)
- Section 6, in particular sub-sections (5) and (6), National Investigation Agency Act, 2008Section 6(5) is a suo motu power, operating notwithstanding sub-sections (1) to (4), for the Central Government to direct the NIA to investigate a Scheduled Offence; read with Section 8 it allows directing investigation of other accused on an NIA report. Section 6(6) shows the intent to avoid duplicate investigations. (¶¶ 5, 5.2, 5.7, 7.3, 7.6, 7.10, 7.12, 7.15)
- Section 14, National Investigation Agency Act, 2008The Special Court may try connected offences with the Scheduled Offences; this supported transfer of the trial of the Punjab cases to the Special Court in Gujarat and the NIA's application for cancellation of bail. (¶¶ 5, 8.10)
- Sections 17 and 18, Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967Raising funds for terrorist acts and conspiracy are Scheduled Offences under the NIA Act; their invocation in the Gujarat case provided the Scheduled Offence to which the petitioner's NDPS offences were held connected. (¶¶ 6, 6.1, 7, 8.1, 8.9)
- Sections 21, 25, 27A and 29, Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985The offences alleged against the petitioner in the Punjab FIRs are non-scheduled offences under the NIA Act, but were held investigable by the NIA because of their connection with the UAPA offences in the Gujarat case. (¶¶ 3.1, 8.6, 8.7, 8.9)
- Article 47, Constitution of IndiaReferred to in the epilogue as casting a duty on the State to improve public health and endeavour to prohibit consumption of injurious drugs. (¶ 9.1)
Held
- Under Section 8 of the NIA Act, the NIA may, while investigating a Scheduled Offence, investigate any other offence, scheduled or not, provided it is connected with the Scheduled Offence; the connection or nexus is of critical importance. (¶¶ 5.8, 7, 7.9)
- The expression 'the accused' in Section 8 cannot be restricted to the person against whom the Scheduled Offence is being investigated under Section 6(4) or 6(5); it includes any other accused whose offence, detected during the investigation, is connected with the Scheduled Offence. The Act, especially Section 6, is offence-centric, not accused-centric. (¶¶ 7.5, 7.6, 7.10, 7.11, 7.13, 7.16, 7.18)
- Another accused may be investigated under Section 8 where the NIA forms the opinion that his offence is connected with the Scheduled Offence, reports this to the Central Government, the Central Government directs investigation under Section 6(5) read with Section 8, and the investigation is carried out jointly with the ongoing one as far as practicable. (¶ 7.12)
- Section 8 contains a built-in safeguard: the NIA can extend investigation to a connected non-scheduled offence only while investigating a Scheduled Offence, and has no power to start investigating non-scheduled offences on their own. (¶ 7.17)
- The impugned orders were valid: they were issued under Section 6(5) read with Section 8 in continuation of the original order on NIA reports of connection, and before the Punjab FIR was transferred, at least two accused in the NIA's investigation of the Scheduled Offences were also named in the Punjab FIRs. (¶¶ 8.2, 8.3, 8.8, 8.9)
- Since the offences alleged against the petitioner are now investigated by the NIA and the trial is transferred to the Special Court in Gujarat to be tried with the UAPA offences under Section 14, the NIA was justified in seeking cancellation of bail, and the High Court's order cancelling bail was upheld. (¶¶ 2.8, 8.10)
- In an epilogue the Court recorded concern at the spread of drug abuse and its link with terror funding, and called on parents, schools and colleges, communities and NGOs, NALSA and legal services authorities, and the NCPCR and NCB to strengthen prevention and awareness, urging that victims of drug abuse be rehabilitated rather than demonised. (¶¶ 9, 9.2, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 9.15)
Result
Writ petition challenging the Central Government's orders and special leave petition against cancellation of bail dismissed; interim protection granted to the petitioner vacated.