New Delhi, Feb. 12 -- The Supreme Court on Wednesday said it would not interfere at this stage with the National Investigation Agency's (NIA) probe into the recent violence at West Bengal's Beldanga in Murshidabad district and that all objections raised by the state be examined by the Calcutta High Court, although it questioned the basis on which the agency invoked the stringent anti-terror law to justify taking over the case. Disposing of the state's petitions, the court said that it would be appropriate for the high court to independently assess the NIA's decision to invoke Section 15 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA), which defines a "terrorist act", after examining a status report to be submitted by the agency in a sealed cover. A bench of Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi clarified that it has expressed no opinion on the merits and that both sides would be at liberty to raise all contentions before the high court, where the matter remains pending. "Go back to the high court and make a plea for reconsideration," Justice Bagchi told the West Bengal government, which had come in appeal against the high court order last month, giving the Centre the option to hand over the probe to the NIA and also deploy central armed forces following violent agitation in Beldanga in mid-January that led to arson and damage to public property. The bench, in its order, recorded that the state's plea will be heard by a division bench headed by the high court chief justice, before whom related proceedings are pending. The NIA has been asked to submit a report before the high court indicating whether a prima facie case exists for continuing its probe. While refraining from stalling the investigation, the top court questioned the basis on which the NIA invoked Section 15 of the UAPA, which defines a "terrorist act", and also included acts likely to threaten economic security of the country. NIA has claimed that the violence affected India's economic security and therefore attracted the stringent anti-terror law. "Without looking into documents, you have said Section 15 UAPA is justified. The case diary was not placed before you. You have said yourself that case papers have not been handed over to you.this is a pre-decisional conclusion arrived at.Every emotional outburst cannot be packaged as a threat to economic security," the bench remarked during the hearing. The court also noted that similar violence took place in April 2025 in Murshidabad and observed that despite the Calcutta High Court indicating that NIA was at liberty to examine whether a probe was warranted, the agency had not acted promptly at the time. "In April 2025, we saw this kind of violence and the state government did not object at that time. The high court division bench asked NIA to see if a probe can be conducted. But then NIA slept over it!" it added. The bench was hearing two petitions filed by the West Bengal government -- one challenging the Calcutta High Court's January 20 observation that it would be open to the Centre to consider an NIA probe, and another challenging the Union Home Ministry's January 28 order directing NIA to investigate. The high court's first order was issued on a plea filed by Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and state's leader of Opposition Suvendu Adhikari. The violence in question took place in January in Murshidabad's Beldanga area after the body of a migrant worker, 30-year-old Alauddin Sheikh, allegedly murdered in Jharkhand, was brought to his native village in West Bengal. Protests reportedly escalated into violence, with demonstrators blocking a national highway and attacking a journalist. Police registered four FIRs and arrested at least 30 people. On January 20, the Calcutta High Court directed the state to deploy central armed police forces to prevent further unrest and observed that it would be open to the Centre to consider an NIA investigation. NIA subsequently initiated its probe. Before the Supreme Court, Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, appearing for NIA, defended the agency's action, citing the proximity of the area to the Bangladesh border and the alleged use of deadly weapons. "This is a porous border near Bangladesh. There was violence and deadly weapons were used. We are doing an independent investigation.they are not handing over probe papers to us. Please direct them to do so," he submitted. Senior counsel PS Patwalia, representing Adhikari, contended the highway blockade's economic significance as justification for invoking Section 15 of UAPA. As the hearing concluded, senior advocate Kalyan Banerjee, appearing for West Bengal, accused the NIA of being selective in its interventions. "Only in West Bengal, NIA is active!" he said, prompting ASG Raju to respond, "Sorry to say, it is well known what is happening there."...