The Supreme Court on Wednesday questioned the rationale of the NIA invoking terror-related sections under the UAPA in connection with the violence at Beldanga in January, saying “every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security”.

A bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi asked a Calcutta High Court division bench to examine whether, prima facie, any terror-related offences were made out based on the probe by the National Investigation Agency into the Beldanga incident.

“Even without looking into the documents, you have said Section 15 is justified. The case diary was not placed before you. This is pre-decisional. Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security,” Justice Bagchi told additional solicitor general S.V. Raju, who appeared for the NIA.

The Supreme Court passed the directions and observations while disposing of two appeals filed by the Bengal government challenging the high court’s order to the Centre to “consider” an NIA probe into the Beldanga violence and the subsequent January 28 notification issued by the Union government for the NIA inquiry.

The high court had passed the directions on a plea by the leader of the Opposition, Suvendu Adhikari, for an independent probe into the violence at Belgdanga in Murshidabad district. The killing of local youth Alauddin Sheikh in Jharkhand over his suspected Bangladeshi origins triggered the violence. The protesters damaged public and private properties and blocked national highways.

During the hearing on Wednesday, the Supreme Court was not convinced by the invocation of the terror-related UAPA sections against the offenders by the NIA.

The bench referred to an earlier direction by the high court in April 2025 during a previous round of violence in Murshidabad district for an NIA probe, upon which the Centre did not act. “At that time, you did not do anything. You slept over it,” Justice Bagchi observed.

Under Section 15 of the UAPA, “[(1)] Whoever does any act with intent to threaten or likely to threaten the unity, integrity, security [, economic security,] or sovereignty of India or with intent to strike terror or likely to strike terror in the people or any section of the people in India or in any foreign country, — commits a terrorist act. Further under section 16 any person involved for such offence is liable for punishment up to life term though the minimum sentence is five years”.

Raju defended the NIA action, saying the accused persons had formed into an unlawful assembly and used petrol bombs and other lethal weapons to strike terror among the people. He said the decision was taken in the interests of “national security” as India shares a porous border with Bangladesh. Besides, the state police had not taken serious action against the attackers, he said.

Senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, who represented the Bengal government, disputed Raju’s argument and said the police had promptly registered an FIR and arrested over 30 persons. He said it had become a pattern for the NIA to conduct probes only into the affairs of Bengal.

Justice Kant said the court would not express any opinion on the merits of the allegations.