NIA On The Edge in SC for Biased Inaction

Feb 13, 2026 - By Ashutosh Roy Current AffairsPolitics

Key Highlights

1. Supreme Court criticizes NIA for invoking UAPA in the Beldanga violence case without proper document review.
2. Bench led by CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi questions selective use of anti-terror laws.
3. Court flags NIA’s inaction in the larger Murshidabad violence (April 2025) incident.
4. Debate intensifies over alleged selective activism vs selective inaction by central agencies.
5. NIA, formed after the 26/11 Mumbai attacks (2008), is India’s top counter-terror investigation agency.
6. Opposition parties allege misuse of ED, CBI, and UAPA to target political rivals before elections.
7. Arrests of Umar Khalid and Stan Swamy under UAPA earlier triggered nationwide debate on civil liberties.
8. Allegations of West Bengal Police inaction in Samsherganj and Beldanga raise law-and-order concerns.
9. Questions grow over the credibility and independence of investigative agencies in India.
10. The larger issue centers on democracy, institutional neutrality, and rule of law in a politically charged environment.

Why Did the Supreme Court Criticize the NIA?

On February 11, 2026, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticized the country’s top national investigative agency, the National Investigation Agency (NIA). A day of sorrow for the citizens of a democratic country, India.

Essentially, the Court raised serious objections to the NIA’s decision to invoke the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) in the Beldanga violence case in West Bengal.

A bench led by Chief Justice of India (CJI) Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi heard the matter. However, the Apex Court has referred back the same to Calcutta High Court. Significantly, the NIA probe will continue.

In particular, the Supreme Court said the NIA started a terrorism-related investigation without properly reviewing the case documents. As a result, the Court questioned whether the agency had applied UAPA in a justified manner.

Moreover, the Court also criticized the NIA for not taking action in a similar but larger incident of violence in Murshidabad in April 2025. Therefore, the Court’s observation clearly indicated two possibilities:

1. Either the agency showed selective inaction
2. or It displayed selective over-activism in certain cases.

What Happened Earlier in the Calcutta High Court?

Earlier, when Leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari sought an NIA probe into the violence in Samsherganj, the matter came before the Calcutta High Court.

At that time, a division bench led by Justice Soumen Sen questioned the need for court intervention. The bench observed that the Central Government itself has the authority to order an NIA investigation, and therefore, the court’s direction was not necessary.

Later, when a judge asked the NIA’s counsel why the agency had not initiated an investigation on its own, the counsel replied clearly. He stated that the NIA can proceed only if the court or the Central Government issues an order.

In short, the Supreme Court’s sharp remarks have raised important questions about the application of UAPA, the role of the NIA, and the issue of selective action in violence-related cases in West Bengal. Perhaps the Bengal Election 2026 is the key reason for such a proactivity of NIA.

Why Was the NIA Created?

It is important to note that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) was established on December 31, 2008. The Government of India created the NIA in the aftermath of the 26/11 Mumbai terror attacks. At that time, the country felt the urgent need for a specialized central counter-terrorism agency. Therefore, the government set up the NIA as a dedicated law enforcement body to handle serious national security cases.

The primary objective was clear. The NIA was formed to conduct deep, professional, and scientific investigations into serious scheduled offences. These include:

1. Terrorism
2. Cyber terrorism
3. Human trafficking
4. Offences under the Explosive Substances Act
5. Other crimes affecting national security

Moreover, the agency was expected to follow modern investigative techniques and international standards while handling such cases.

NIA: India’s Highest-Level Investigation Agency

In simple terms, the NIA functions as India’s top central investigation agency for terror and national security cases.

Therefore, its decisions, especially regarding the application of laws like UAPA, carry significant legal and constitutional importance.

Allegations of Misuse of Central Laws

In the past, several government investigative agencies have faced allegations of being overactive against opposition leaders.

For example, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) has been repeatedly criticized by the Supreme Court of India for its functioning in certain cases. Similarly, the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has previously been described by the Court as a “caged parrot,” raising questions about its independence.

Almost all opposition parties have repeatedly alleged that the government misuses central laws and agencies. According to them, these laws are often used to:

• Intimidate political opponents
• Create pressure before elections
• Prevent opposition leaders from campaigning freely

However, it is important to note that these allegations are not limited to the tenure of Prime Minister Narendra Modi. In fact, similar accusations were raised even during the earlier Congress-led governments.

The Debate Over “Draconian Laws”

Alongside this debate, another serious concern continues to surface, the use of so-called draconian laws, particularly the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA).

For instance, when Umar Khalid and Stan Swamy were arrested under UAPA, widespread criticism emerged across the country. Many activists and civil society groups described the arrests as retaliatory or politically motivated actions by the state.

Therefore, concerns over the misuse of anti-terror laws are not new. They have surfaced repeatedly over the years.

NIA Now Faces Scrutiny

Now, even the National Investigation Agency (NIA),  India’s top counter-terror investigation body, finds itself under judicial scrutiny.

As a result, the ongoing criticism raises broader questions about:

• The use of UAPA
• The independence of investigative agencies
• And the balance between national security and civil liberties

In summation, the debate over the alleged misuse of central agencies and anti-terror laws continues to shape India’s political and legal discourse.

Who Holds the First Responsibility?

It is important to note that in both Samsherganj and Beldanga, serious allegations of inaction by the West Bengal Police surfaced.

According to reports and public reactions, the police did not act promptly despite repeated cries for help from affected residents. Moreover, even when public property was allegedly being damaged, law enforcement failed to respond effectively.

In Beldanga, an incident involving the alleged assault of a journalist created widespread outrage. As a result, questions about law and order in West Bengal intensified.

In a democratic country, the State Police carries the primary responsibility to protect citizens. Therefore, when citizens do not receive immediate protection at the state level, public trust begins to erode. After that, people naturally look toward central investigative agencies for intervention.

Delays by Central Agencies

However, central agencies have also faced criticism in the past. In cases such as:

• Saradha scam
• Rose Valley Scam
• Narada sting case
• R.G. Kar Medical College Rape and Murder Case
• Teachers’ Recruitment Scam (2016) by ED
• Coal Smuggling Case

The ED and CBI investigations allegedly stretched on for years without clear conclusions. As a result, opposition parties and sections of civil society have questioned the pace and intent of such probes.

Confrontations and Administrative Tensions

There have also been instances of direct confrontation.

• For example, when central agencies attempted to question senior officials like Rajeev Kumar, local police reportedly intervened, creating a tense standoff.
• Similarly, when ED officers tried to arrest certain accused individuals like Shahjahan in Sandeshkhali, they allegedly faced public resistance and even attacks.
• In another controversial episode, when central agencies conducted raids at private firms such as IPAC, the Chief Minister reportedly visited the location along with senior police officers and bureaucrats and removed documents and electronic devices.

Larger Political Allegations

Therefore, critics argue that the rule of law in West Bengal appears weakened. At the same time, some political voices, particularly from the Left and Congress, allege an unusual “understanding” or “BJP-TMC setting” between the state and the central government.

In conclusion, the situation highlights a complex conflict involving:

• State police inaction allegations
• Central agency delays
• Political confrontation
• And broader concerns about governance and accountability

As a result, the debate over law enforcement, federalism, and political influence in investigations continues to dominate public discourse.

Is it Only NIA or Democracy under Question?

The real concern lies elsewhere.

Today, the leaders we strongly criticize have all come to power through democratic elections. However, many of them have remained in power continuously for long periods. As a result, questions naturally arise about accountability and democratic balance.

A Regional Example: Bangladesh Elections

On February 12, voting took place in Bangladesh. However, Sheikh Hasina’s Awami League did not participate in the electoral process. In other words, the party founded by Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman stayed out of this election. This example is relevant for an important reason.

Sheikh Hasina also came to power through elections. However, over time, critics accused her government of becoming increasingly authoritarian.

Eventually, political pressure forced her to leave the country on very short notice.

Therefore, history shows that even elected leaders can face serious public backlash if governance becomes excessively centralized or authoritarian.

Why India’s Democracy Is Different

India, however, has maintained a strong democratic tradition. Power has changed hands peacefully through elections.

For example, despite leading India to victory in the 1971 war, Indira Gandhi lost power in the 1977 general elections.

The Indian electorate voted her out. This proves that Indian democracy has the strength to correct itself.

Similarly, in the United States, protests such as the “No Kings” demonstrations have emerged against former President Donald Trump. These protests highlight public resistance against perceived authoritarian tendencies.

Authoritarian Concerns and Central Agencies

Therefore, history repeatedly demonstrates that authoritarian governance does not last forever.

Critics argue that when agencies like the NIA, ED, or CBI are allegedly used in a targeted manner against political opponents, it creates the perception of authoritarian functioning.

At the same time, many people in West Bengal express frustration over what they describe as a soft administrative approach toward certain communities. According to them, this selective approach weakens public trust in governance.

The Larger Democratic Question

In conclusion, the debate is not merely about one agency or one government. Instead, it centers on:

• The independence of institutions
• The fair application of law
• And the long-term health of democracy in India

History clearly suggests one thing: democracy survives when institutions remain strong, impartial, and accountable.

How Authoritarian Tendencies Begin

When a ruling government loses confidence in its own governance or development record, an authoritarian mindset often begins to grow.

The main reason is simple. The desire to remain in power at any cost becomes stronger than democratic values. As a result, policies of suppression and intimidation begin to emerge.

First, governments often try to influence the media. They either attempt to bring media houses closer to the ruling establishment or put pressure on critical voices. The freedom of press becomes their primary concern and they become desperate to oppress them.

Next, they become less tolerant of dissent. Gradually, they stop accepting opposition voices and public criticism. They harass people by unnecessary court cases or police action.

Recently, there were claims that more than two hundred people in the state were detained under narcotics-related cases, allegedly to prevent them from participating in elections. We cannot confirm whether these claims are true or false. However, such allegations raise serious concerns in a democracy.

Crisis of Credibility

Today, institutions such as the NIA, ED, CBI, and even the State Police and CID, face growing questions about their credibility.

This situation is deeply troubling. In a democratic system, investigative and law enforcement agencies must remain independent, impartial, and professional. Their actions should never appear politically motivated.

What Citizens Expect

Ultimately, citizens expect one simple thing. They want the administration to perform its duties without showing loyalty to any political party.

They want institutions to function according to the rule of law, not according to political convenience.

In conclusion, democracy survives only when institutions remain neutral, accountable, and trustworthy. That is perhaps the collective aspiration of the people today.

Key Takeaways

1. Why did the Supreme Court blast the NIA over its alleged selective proactivity in the Beldanga UAPA case?
2. Has the NIA become unusually proactive ahead of the 2026 elections?
3. Did the Court question the selective use of UAPA in West Bengal violence cases?
4. Why did the NIA not act in the larger Murshidabad violence incident of April 2025?
5. Why do central agencies like CBI, ED, and NIA face allegations of slow investigations in West Bengal?
6. Are investigative agencies being used strategically before elections?
7. How do democratically elected leaders gradually turn into elected autocrats?
8. Does prolonged political power weaken institutional neutrality?
9. Why is the credibility of NIA, ED, CBI, and State Police under scrutiny today?
10. Where should citizens seek justice if the administration appears politically polarized?