UNIVERSITY INSTITUTE OF LEGAL STUDIES

PROJECT REPORT

ON

THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY

ACT, 2019:

SUBMITTED TO: SUBMITTED BY:

Dr. Shruti Bedi Harkirat Singh

Roll No. 283

Section C, Semester 7

BCOM LLB

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

TOPIC PAGE NO.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3

TABLE OF CASES 4

INTRODUCTION 5

CONSTITUTIONAL VALIDITY OF THE ACT 7

AMENDMENTS IN THE ACT 26

DISCREPENCIES IN NIA 27

CONCLUSION 29

BIBLIOGRAPGHY 30

2
 ACKNOWLEDGMENT

At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Dr. Shruti Bedi
for putting her trust in me and giving me a project topic such as this and for having the faith in me
to deliver. Ma’am, thank you for giving me an opportunity which helped me to develop my
knowledge in this interesting subject as well as to grasp a better approach in dealing with this
important branch of Law.

Harkirat Singh

Roll no. 283

3
 TABLE OF CASES

• A.Beema Dowlath v. State of Tamil Nadu, W.A. No. 856 of 2015

• Anant Brahmachari v. Union of India, AIR 2012 SCC Online Del 1680 : ILR (2012) 3 Del

682

• Anirudha S. Bhagat v. Ramnivas Meena, 2005 CriLJ 334

• Bharat Mohan Rateshwar v. The National Investigation Agency, 2012 SCC Online Raj 3506;

2013 CriLJ (NOC 411) 152

• Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. National Investigation Agency, 2011 SCC Online Bom

1734 : 2012 CriLJ 2621 : (2012) 3 AIR Bom R 776

• Pragya Singh Chnadrapal Singh Thakar Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 6 AIR Bom R

1171

• Prakash Singh Vs. Union Of India, (2006), 8 SCC 1

• Saraswati Rai v. Union of India, 2011 SCC Online Cal 1227 : 2011 CriLJ 3020

• State of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Hussain, (2014) 1 SCC 258; (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 252

• State Of Bombay Vs. Vishnu Ramchandra, AIR 1961 SC 307

• Sorokhaibam Memcha Devi v. National Investigating Agency, 2014 SCC Online Cal 14181

• Taher Saifuddin v. Tyebbhai Moosaji, AIR 1953 Bom 183

• The Queen v. Inhabitants of St. Mary Whitechapel, (1848) 12 QB 120 : 110 ER 811

• Vinod Patidar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2012 SCC Online MP 7626

• Usmanbhai Dawoodbhai Memon v. State of Gujarat, (1988) 2 SCC 271 : AIR 1988 SC 922

4
 INTRODUCTION

In the modern warfare, where any country has strong military base and well-equipped police force
to combat terrorism and militant activities, but the presence of intelligence agencies is felt outright
as they play significant role which cannot be performed by army or police. Ever since human
existence, gathering information by means of espionage has been a key element to the survival of
nations. India has already many intelligence agencies like Intelligence Bureau, which is the oldest
among all the agencies, Narcotics Control Bureau, Director of Revenue Intelligence etc., on the
national level and Research and Analysis Wing on international level. A major change in the
functioning of intelligence agencies have been made due to the advancement of technology and
modern methods used by anti- social activists. Intelligence officers are often termed as the unseen
heroes because they take up those cases which cannot be taken up by any other wings of the
government and mostly discharge their duties undercover. But 26/11 Mumbai Attacks proved to be
the major intelligence failure of India. This attack established that India needs better intelligence to
safeguard the country from terrorist massacre which led to the creation of National Investigation
Agency.1

Over the past two decades the world has witnessed major terrorist activities like the 9/11
Attack or the London Bombings or the Norway attack and many more, which has proved that
whether it is a developed country or as powerful as United State of America, combating terrorism is
a difficult task. India, which is a very soft target, due to its vast population and communal diversity,
terrorist attacks and bombings has become quite normal. But the “26/11 MUMBAI ATTACK” was
the most traumatic and horrifying attack in the history of India as well as for the world. After the
incident of Mumbai Attack, the Central Government felt the need of a Counter Terrorist Agency.
With the recommendation of the Administrative Reforms Commission, The National Investigating
Agency Bill, 2008 was passed and approved by the cabinet on 16th December 2008 and the
National Investigating Act, 2008 (NIA ACT) has been enacted and notified on 31st December 2008
and THE NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY (NIA) has been constituted.2

The country has been the victim of large-scale terrorism sponsored from across the border.

1 THE WORLD JOURNAL ON JURISTIC POLITY, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, Barsha Mitra

2 Ibid
5
Over the past few years, India has been witnessing vast scale terrorism sponsored from across the
borders. Indefinite number of times, there have been terrorist attacks and bomb blasts in the major
cities of India and almost in every such incident there is complex inter-state and international
linkages. Keeping all this in view, it was felt that it was high time, that we need, an agency at the
Central level for investigation of offences related to terrorism and certain other Acts which have
national ramifications. NIA is a federal agency approved by the Indian Government to combat terror
in India.

The National Investigating Agency (NIA) has to, investigate and prosecute offences
affecting sovereignty, integrity and security of India; at the national level. Therefore, the NIA has to
play the role of national level counter terrorism law enforcement agency. It has concurrent
jurisdiction which empowers the centre to probe terror attacks in any part of the country, covering
offences, including challenge to country‘s sovereignty and integrity, bomb blasts, hijacking of
aircraft and ships and attacks on nuclear installations. Other than offenses of terrorism, it also deals
with counterfeit currency, human trafficking, narcotics or drugs, organized crime, plane hijackings
and violations of atomic energy act and weapons of mass destruction act. At present the NIA is
dealing with around 163 cases and recently it has filed the charge sheet in the railway incident of
Ghorasan, Motihari, Bihar. The NIA has a good rate of conviction which is around 93%.3
The creation of a national investigating agency has been in the minds of many for along
time. In Prakash Singh Vs. Union Of India4 , the Supreme Court received materials from the
National Human Rights Commission, the Soli Sorabjee Committee, the Bureau of Police Research
and Development and the second Administrative Reforms Commission on the need and scope for a
national investigation agency. They all suggested and so did the Supreme Court that there was a
need for an investigating agency at the national levels because certain crimes possess interstate and
international dimension and it is extremely difficult for a state law enforcement body to investigate
and prevent such crimes due to their lack of jurisdiction and the power to coordinate national or
cross border activities. Also the state level law enforcement authorities are not able to keep up with
the rapidly increasing dependence on technology and modernization adopted by the cross border
terrorists.

3 http://www.nia.gov.in/index.htm

4 AIR 2006 8 SCC 1

6
OBJECTIVES OF THE ACT

Till date, the agency was successful in creating deterrence in the society by its professionalism and
standards. The vision of the agency is to combat terrorism and other national security related
investigation by a highly developed and trained workforce. The agency aims at developing as a
storehouse of all kind of terrorist related information.

The missions of agency are:

• Professional investigation of schedule offences.

• Ensuring effective and speedy trial.

• Complying with the Constitution and other related laws.

• To develop a professional workforce

• To display scientific temper and professional spirit.

• Inducting modern methods and latest technology.

• To coordinate with other agencies and government.

• To assist others in a situation of terrorist activities.

• Maintaining databases of all terror groups and activities.

• To study and analyze laws related to terrorism and other terror activities.

• Further to serve the citizen and gaining their confidence.

CONSTITUTIONAL VADILITY OF THE ACT

The Constitutional basis for the creation of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 remains a
matter of debate.

The NIA Act was challenged before the division bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of
Pragya Singh Chandrapal Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra5 through Additional Chief
Secretary & Ors18 wherein, Information was lodged at Azad Nagar Police Station, Malegaon, for
the bomb blast that took place on 29.09.2008 at Malegaon, Nasik. The petitioners were accused for
offences punishable under various Sections of the Indian Penal Code, the Explosive Substance Act,

5 (2013) 6 AIR Bom R 1171

7
Arms Act and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967. The same crime was also re-
registered with ATS Police Station, Kala Chowki, Mumbai. The DIG, ATS, Mumbai has invoked
the provisions of the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act, 1999 (MCOCA) to the said
crime and subsequently the prosecution sanction was accorded by the Additional Director General
of Police. The learned Special (MCOCA) Court took the cognizance upon the charge sheet filed by
the investigating agency, ATS and issued process under (MCOCA), IPC, UAPA and under Arms
Act.

Bail application was filed by some of the accused of the case and the Special (MCOCA) Court
was pleased to discharged all the accused from the provisions of MCOC Act. The said order was
challenged by the State of Maharashtra by invoking the MCOCA before this court along with some
other connected appeals. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court by its common order
strike down the order of discharge accused passed by the Special (MCOCA) Court. Thereafter, the
affected parties including the present petitioner has filed Special Leave Petition (Criminal) before
the Honourable Supreme Court of India in which the notice has been issued to the respondents
before admission and which is yet to be disposed of.

In April 2011, the Union Home Ministry, handed over the investigation of Malegaon bomb blast
to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) which was lodged at Azad Nagar and was earlier
transferred to ATS. The petitioner who is in custody since 10.10.2008 is greatly aggrieved by the
decision of the Union Home Ministry to hand over the investigation of Malegaon bomb blast 2008
to National investigation Agency and has challenged the legislative competence of the parliament to
enact the NIA Act, 2008.

By virtue of the Indian Constitution, Police and Public Order are in the state list and criminal
law is in the concurrent list. Even though criminal law is in the concurrent list, the investigation of
major crimes is in the purview of the state police since public order is a subject of in the state list.
The overstrained police of Indian states with its restricted territorial jurisdiction and limited
resources and expertise are not able to combat terrorism and the related offences. An agency like the
Central Bureau Of Investigation (CBI) can investigate certain crimes only with the consent of the
appropriate state governments or by an order of the court. It is being challenged that the enactment
of the NIA Act is beyond legislative competence of the parliament. The basis of the allegations
being that the act falls within list II state list entry 2 of the VII schedule. Since it is an act creating
an investigating machinery, it is commensurate to enacting a law in relation to police which is
covered by the state list where the parliament cannot legislate. The enactment deals with the state
8
crimes and police. In view of these circumstances it was contented that the NIA Act is clearly
beyond the powers of the parliament, as per article 246 of the Indian Constitution the NIA Act is
nothing but an encroachment of the powers of the state to make a law in respect of entry 2 in list II.6

However even though there are certain aspects of the police powers covered by the union list by
virtue of which the Central Bureau Of Investigation has been established under the Delhi Special
Police Establishment Act, 1946, where by the centre has provided for the consent of state
governments to enable the CBI to take over an investigation in relation to crimes within the states.
Such provision being absent in the NIA Act makes competence of the parliament to enact the act
more questionable.7

In their defence the central government explained that the NIA has been constituted for
investigation and prosecution of offences directly effecting the defence of the country. The NIA has
been constituted under section 3(1) of the act for the investigation and prosecution of offences
under the acts specified under the schedule. The acts covered under the schedule are:

• The Atomic Energy Act, 1962

• The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

• The Anti-Hijacking Act, 1982

• The Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Civil Aviation Act, 1982

• The SAARC Convention (Suppression of Terrorism) Act, 1993.

• The Suppression of Unlawful Acts against Safety of Maritime Navigation and Fixed

• Platforms on Continental Shelf Act, 2002 (69 of 2002);

• The Weapons of Mass Destruction and their Delivery Systems (Prohibition of

• Unlawful Activities) Act, 2005 (21 of 2005);

• Offences under—

a. Chapter VI of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) [sections 121 to 130 (both inclusive);

b. Sections 489-A to 489-E (both inclusive) of the Indian Penal Code.

6 Dr. Shruti Bedi, Indian Counter Terrorism Law, Page No. 283-285,

7 Ibid
9
 Clearly the offences under these acts are those that affect the sovereignty, security, and
integrity of India or in other words the defence of the country and its territory. Entry 1 of list I
pertains to the defence of India. Accordingly the parliament therefore has the right to make a law
for the creation of an agency whose basic objective is to provide for the defence of the nation and
its states. Moreover under article 355, the centre has a duty to protect every state against external
aggression and internal disturbance. Terrorism being an offence which the states cannot deal with
independently as it requires the specialized forces of the centre and inter state corporation, the
creation of national investigating agency for this purpose is valid. This view of the central
government has been supported by the Supreme Court through their suggestions in the case of
Pragyasingh Chandrapal Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra8.

The preamble and the statement of objects and reasons of the act clearly explain that the
NIA is an investigating agency which will only investigate and prosecute offences mentioned in the
schedule which effect the defense of the country at large and its international relations.

The Preamble to the act reads as:

“An Act to constitute an investigation agency at the national level to investigate and
prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of India, security of
State, friendly relations with foreign States and offences under Acts enacted to implement
international treaties, agreements, conventions and resolutions of the United Nations, its
agencies and other international organisations and for matters connected therewith or
incidental thereto.”9

The Statement of objects and reasons:-

"Over the past several years, India has been the victim of large scale terrorism
sponsored from across the borders. There have been innumerable incidents of terrorist
attacks, not only in the militancy and insurgency affected areas and areas affected by Left
Wing Extremism, but also in the form of terrorist attacks and bomb blasts, etc. in various
parts of the hinterland and major cities, etc. A large number of of such incidents are found to
have complex inter-State and international linkages, and possible connection with other
activities like the smuggling of arms and drugs, pushing in and circulation of fake Indian

8 (2013) 6 AIR Bom R 1171

9 Bare Act, The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

10
 currency, infiltration from across the borders, etc.. Keeping all these in view, it has for long
been felt that there is need for setting up an Agency at the Central level for investigation of
offences related to terrorism and certain other Acts, which have national ramifications.
Several experts and Committees, including the Administrative Reforms Commission in its
Report, have also made recommendations for establishing such an Agency.
The Government after due consideration and examination of the issues involved,
proposes to enact a legislation to make provisions for establishment of a National
Investigation Agency in a concurrent jurisdiction framework, with provisions for taking up
specific cases under specific Acts for investigation, provisions for setting up of Special
Courts and for other related matters. These provisions are proposed to be incorporated in the
National Investigation Agency Bill, 2008.
The Bill seeks to achieve the objectives mentioned above."10

The primary objective to establish a national investigation agency is to efficiently and pointedly
tackle cross border crimes. Since crimes like terrorism have inter state and international originations
and ramifications, it is the sovereign duty of the Union towards its citizens to provide protection of
their life, liberty and poverty.

If the matter is covered under the state list then the parliament cannot legislate on it. If the
law does not fall in the state list then the parliament would have legislative competence to enact a
law by virtue of the residuary powers under article 248 read with entry 97 of the union list and it
would not be necessary to go into the fact as to whether it falls in the union list or the concurrent
list. Further article 249 confers powers on the parliament to legislate on a matter in the state list
which is in national interest.

In Pragya Singh Chandrapal Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra11 the division
bench of the Mumbai High Court held: “In these circumstances we are of the view that when in
matters of police, the Parliament was not wholly incompetent to enact a law and at least in relation
to constitution, establishment and regulation of the police force in Union Territories, then, for the
Nation and Country as a whole, it cannot be said to be incompetent to set up a NIA particularly
when such agency is restricted to investigation and prosecution of the offences under the Acts
specified in the Schedule to the NIA Act. That would mean that an interpretation, which is unduly

10 Supra note 9

11 Supra Note 5
11
restrictive of powers of the Parliament, is placed on the entries in List-I and List-III and particularly
in matters of investigation and prosecution of crimes. When the entries in the Concurrent List are so
widely worded, then, to hold that the Parliament does not have power to set up an agency, namely,
NIA by enacting the NIA Act would be unnecessarily and unduly restricting and fettering the
powers of the Parliament.”

Another point of controversy regarding the establishment of NIA Act was that it sets up a police
force which is evident from reading sub section 1 of section 3 of the act, which makes a reference to
the Police Act, 1861. Police being a state subject the parliament cannot legislate on the matter. 12

The parliament in its defense said that the section opens with a non obstinate clause which
states that Notwithstanding anything in the Police Act. 1861 (5 of 1861.), the Central Government
may constitute a special agency to be called the National Investigation Agency for investigation and
prosecution of offences under the Acts specified in the Schedule.13 Reference has been made to the
Police Act, because the Police Act, 1861, would have posed difficulties for the constitution of the
NIA. This is due to the fact that the regulations of police and the constitution of the police force
under the Police Act, are done on the direction of the state government. Sections 2, 3, 4, and 5 of the
Police Act contain the provisions by which the state government was designated as a supervising or
controlling authority of the police force. Further, to enable the NIA to enter the state limits and the
limits of a local police station and to investigate the offences under the acts specified in the
schedule. Therefore, section3 of the NIA Act does not create or constitutes or establishes a police
force.

The Division Bench of Bombay High Court (Darmadhikari S.C and Shukre S.B.,JJ) has
upheld the constitutional validity of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

In Vinod Patidar v. State of Madhya Pradesh14 the petitioner's grievance was on account
of the fact that the notice was issued on 1.3.12 by the NIA and he was directed to appear on 2.3.12
at 10.00 am before the NIA, Begumpet, Hyderabad. The petitioner asserted that the notice had been

12 Supra note 6, Page No. 288,

13 Bare Act, The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

14 2012 SCC Online MP 7626

12
issued under Section 160 of Code of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 and the statutory provisions of
law does not empower any police officer sitting at Hyderabad to direct the presence of any person
residing at Indore. If a witness is required to attend the police station it has to be the nearest police
station or the adjoining police station, where the person is residing.

Sub-section 2 of Section 3 of the Act of 2008 categorically provides that the Officers of the
Agency possess jurisdiction throughout India in respect of certain acts which includes the
investigation of offences registered by NIA. Section 160 CrPC as stated above certainly does not
hamper the powers conferred on the Investigating Officer who is investigating the offences under
the NIA Act.

The division bench of the Bombay High Court in the case of Anirudha S. Bhagat v.
Ramnivas Meena15 has interpreted Section 160 CrPC to mean that summons can be issued to any
person being within the limits of his own or any adjoining station. The said provision nowhere
states that such person must be within the limits of such police station or adjoining police station at
the time of issuance of the summons but it specifically refers to the fact that such summons can be
issued to any person for the purpose of gathering the information from such person. This provision
has been made in order to enable the Investigating Officer to collect the required information from
every person who is acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case in respect of which the
investigation is being carried out. At the same time, it is provided that if a person residing at one
place is required to appear at a different place, any expenditure incurred by such person for such
attendance can be reimbursed in accordance with the rules framed by the State Government in that
regard." This apparently discloses the intention of the legislature to make necessary provision which
can enable the Investigating Officer to secure the attendance of a person in the Police Station or at
any other place required by Investigating Officer, albeit person must be one who is acquainted with
the facts and circumstances of the case. Once it is revealed to the Investigating Officer that at the
relevant time the person had occasion to be acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case
in respect of an offence which had occurred or he had been within the territorial limits of the police
station to which the police officer is attached to or in the territorial limits of the adjoining police
station, nothing prevents the police officer to summon the person even though at the time of
issuance of the summons, the person is found to be either residing or carrying business beyond the
territorial limits of the police station to which the Investigation Officer is attached to. The only
exception made under the proviso is in relation to the minors of certain age and females.

15 2005 CriLJ 334

13
 The same view has been expressed by the Delhi High Court in the case of Anant
Brahmachari v. Union of India16, wherein the issuance of summons by the NIA, police Officer to
a person beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the police station was upheld. Relying on the above
cited judgments, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the contention regarding the territorial
jurisdiction and the summons issued by the Investigating Officer of NIA. The court held that the
Investigating Officer in exercise of power conferred under the Act of 2008 read with Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 had rightly directed the presence of the petitioner at Hyderabad.

Section 3(2) clearly states that officers of the Agency shall have throughout India in relation
to the investigation of Scheduled Offences and arrest of persons concerned in such offences, all the
powers, duties, privileges and liabilities which police officers have in connection with the
investigation of offences committed therein. Since Section 160(1) CrPC does not restrict the power
of a police officer to examine only a person residing within the limits of such police station or
adjoining police station, the NIA officer can examine any person in the context of the offence
committed by him for the purpose of investigation.

Superintendence of National Investigation Agency.

Section 4. (1) The superintendence of the Agency shall vest in the Central Government.

(2) The administration of the Agency shall vest in an officer designated as the Director-
General appointed in this behalf by the Central Government who shall exercise in respect of the
Agency such of the powers exercisable by a Director-General of Police in respect of the police force
in a State, as the Central Government may specify in this behalf.

The Superintendence of NIA is vested in the Central Government though the Act fails to
define what “the superintendence” means. The Act leaves unclear the extent to which the
supervision of agency is done. The central Government has to determine on the basis of report of
State Government or suo motu that whether the offence committed is a schedule offence and then
whether it is a fit case to be referred to NIA for investigation. These determinations are made by the

16 Supra note 14
14
political executives rather than the DG, professional expert appointed to administer its function. The
Act fails to acknowledge the unique place of DG to craft key organisational and investigative
decisions rather than a political executive which can be clear from the Government decision in these
two cases.

The case of Burdwan blast wherein two persons were killed and another injured in a bomb
explosion in a rented house at Khagragarh, Burdwan on 2nd Oct.2014. It was revealed that the
individuals present in the house were members of Jamaat-ul-Mujahideen Bangladesh and were
engaged in preparation of bombs and organising terrorist camps in pursuance of a larger conspiracy
to terrorist attack in India and Bangladesh. The Burdan blast case was handed over to NIA despite
reservation of the West Bengal Government. The Government has not taken consent of the State
Government and suomotu directed the agency to conduct an investigation. The NIA has arrested a
Burmese national Khalid Mohammed from Hyderabad who was an IED maker and belongs to
Rohinaya Muslim Solidarity group who has admitted to undergone training conducted by Tehreek-
e-Azadi-Arakan with trainers from Pakistan.17

Another case of terrorism was Bangalore-Guwahati Express bomb when it was moving into
the Chennai Central Railway. After initial investigation a case of terror nature was confirmed. The
Tamil Naddu Government has not seeked NIA probe. Home Minister Sushil Kumar Shinde was of
the view that unless and until the State Government seeks an investigation by the NIA, the centre
could not take a call on its own though a team was sent to collect data. 18

The act of central Government is fully political in nature and there is no standard policy for
conferring jurisdiction on NIA to investigate terror cases.

Retrospectivity of the NIA Act

The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 came into force on 31"December 2008. The question
which arises is whether the NIA Act could be applied to an offence committed prior to
31"December 2008. The offence in question being one which is covered under the jurisdiction of
the NIA and the matter is pending before the authorities.

17 http://www.nia.gov.in/NIA-Cases/DLI/2014/03-2014-NIA-DLI.aspx

18 Ibid
15
 This issue arose in the case of Lt. Col. Prasad Shrikant Purohit v. National Investigation
Agency19, Wherein the question was whether the NIA can take over the investigation of a case
pending before the authorities under the MCOC Act. Thereby meaning whether the NIA Act would
be retrospectively applicable to an already complete investigation and the matter was sub judice
before the competent Court?

The facts of the present case were that the offence in question was committed on 29.9.2008.
The NIA Act came into force on 31.12.2008. The Central Government gave the permission/order to
take over further investigation on 1.4.2011. As stated above under the National Investigation
Agency Act, 2008 the scheduled offences as specified in the schedule in terms of Section 2(1)(f)
incorporate apart from Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967 (UAP Act) offences under Indian
Penal Code (IPC).

It was contended before the court that by virtue of the NIA Act coming into play a new
investigation agency comes into the picture and re-investigation or fresh investigation, is not
permissible. By virtue of Section 173(8) CrPC further investigation can only be restricted to the
case but by same agency. Further that Section 6(1) to (4) mean that they will be applicable after the
Act came into force on 31.12.2008 and consequently would not be applicable retrospectively to the
present case of Malegaon Bomb Blast, as NIA Act does not specify authorizing investigation of
pending cases.

However the court was of the view that the NIA Act does not deal with a new offence. It is
an agency relating to only investigation and prosecution. The preamble of the NIA Act talks about
the power to investigate and prosecute offences affecting the sovereignty, security and integrity of
India, security of State. The scheme of the NIA Act clearly establishes that no new offence or in fact
no offence at all is created. It is purely procedural in nature constituting a special agency, National
Investigation Agency for offences and prosecution of scheduled offences.

On an analysis of Section 6 it is evident that clauses (1) to (4) of Section 6 contemplate a

mechanism for appointment of NIA by the Central Government. Section 6(5) starts with a non-
obstante clause, which absolves the effect created by Section 6(1) to Section 6(4). Section 6(5),
under which the Central Government's order dated 1st April, 2011 has come into play, nowhere
suggests that the investigation under the NIA Act has to be commenced by NIA and cannot include
a pending investigation which has been taken over by the NIA."

19 Supra Note no. 28

16
 The unlawful activities prevention act, 1967 and the NIA Act both have come into play on
31. 12. 2008. The former is given retrospective effect. In the NIA Act specifically there is no such
reference. however, it is pertinent to note that merely because a statute authorises the investigation
of some action based on past conduct that would not invalidate the retrospective effect. The
Bombay High Court in the above case held the same. It further cited the case of State Of Bombay
Vs. Vishnu Ramchandra20 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:
In Taher Saifuddin v. Tyebbhai Moosaji,21 the same principles were applied by Chagla,
C. J. and Bhagwati, J. (as he then was), and reference was made also to The Queen v. Inhabitants
of St. Mary Whitechapel22 where Lord Denman, C. J., in his judgment observed:-
“it was said that the operation of the statute was confined to persons who had
become widows after the Act passed, and that the presumption against a retrospective statute
being intended supported this construction; but we have before shown that the statute is in
its direct operation prospective, as it relates to future removals only, and that it is not
properly called a retrospective statute because a part of the requisites for its action is drawn
from time antecedent to its passing."
Now s. 57 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, does not create a new offence nor makes
punishable that which was not an offence. It is designed to protect the public from the
activities of undesirable persons who have been convicted of offences of a particular kind.
The section only enables the authorities to take note of their convictions and to put them
outside the area of their activities, so that the public may be protected against a repetition of
such activities.
As observed by Phillimore, J., in Rex v. Austin (1), "No man has such a vested right
in his past crimes and their consequences as would entitle him to insist that in no future
legislation shall any regard whatever be had to his previous history."
An offender who has been punished may be restrained in his- acts and conduct by
some legislation, which takes note of his antecedents; but so long as the action taken against
him is after the Act comes into force, the statute cannot be said to be applied retrospectively.
The Act in question was thus not applied retrospectively but prospectively.
The NIA Act, is procedural in nature and does not create new offence or disabilities or

20 AIR 1961 SC 307

21 AIR 1953 Bom 183

22 (1848) 12 QB 120 : 110 ER 811

17
obligations. Hence, even assuming that NIA Act has not been given retrospective operation,
however, since it does not create any new offence and it is not a penal Statute, retrospectivity is
permissible in law. Article 20(1) of the Indian Constitution provides protection against an ex post
facto law which makes an act an offence after the commission of the act." It however does not
prohibit the application of a procedural ex post facto law. Such a law is not violative of the
fundamental rights of the accused. Since the NIA Act is only a procedural law, it can be applied
retrospectively.

In Sorokhaibam Memcha Devi v. National Investigating Agency 23 the issue was whether
the impugned order challenged in the criminal revision before the Calcutta High Court was passed
by learned Sessions Judge, Darjeeling or by the learned Judge of the Special Court constituted
under Section 11 of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

The High Court in this matter held that the impugned order was passed by the Sessions
Judge, Darjeeling and not by the Judge of the Special Court constituted under Section 11 of the NIA
Act. It was pointed out that the Notification No. S01589 (E) dated 16" July, 2012 was issued by the
Joint Secretary to the Government of India and published in the Gazette of India Extraordinary on
16th July, 2012 for the purpose of constitution of the Special Court under Section 11(1) of the NIA
Act, 2008. From the said notification dated 16th July, 2012 it was apparent that that the Additional
District & Sessions Court, Siliguri, was designated as Judge of the Special Court under Section 11
of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008. Since there was no existence of the Special Court
under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008, on 6th July, 2011 and since the Sessions Judge,
Darjeeling, decided the plea of juvenility of the petitioner by passing order on 6th July, 2011, it
follows that the order was passed by the sessions Judge and not the judge of the Special Court. The
Special Court was not even in existence on the date of the order passed.

Place Of Sitting

Section 12. A Special Court may, on its own motion, or on an application made by the Public
Prosecutor and if it considers it expedient or desirable so to do, sit for any of its proceedings at any
place other than its ordinary place of sitting.

23 2014 SCC Online Cal 14181

18
 Section 12 allows the Special Court either on its own motion or on the recommendation of
the Public Prosecutor, to hold the proceedings at any place other than its ordinary place of sitting.

In A. Beema Dowlath v. State of Tamil Nadu 24 an incidental argument advanced was that
the right to a fair trial was offended when a Special Court was constituted at a place which is about
400 kms away from the original place as the affected party was unable to engage a counsel of his
choice. The court in response to this pointed out two important facts, namely, (i) that under Section
12 of the NIA Act, 2008, the Special Court is competent either on its own motion or on an
application made by the Public Prosecutor to hold sittings in any place other than its original place
of sitting, and (ii) in any case, the accused can avail the facility of the Legal Services Authority.
Therefore, the inconvenience of having to engage a counsel at a distant place cannot be a ground for
determining the validity of the constitution of the Special Court.

Jurisdiction Of Special Courts

Section 13. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, every Scheduled Offence
investigated by the Agency shall be tried only by the Special Court within whose local jurisdiction
it was committed.

(2) If, having regard to the exigencies of the situation prevailing in a State if,—

(a) it is not possible to have a fair, impartial or speedy trial; or

(b) it is not feasible to have the trial without occasioning the breach of peace or grave risk to
the safety of the accused, the witnesses, the Public Prosecutor or a judge of the Special Court or any
of them; or

(c) it is not otherwise in the interests of justice, the Supreme Court may transfer any case
pending before a Special Court to any other Special Court within that State or in any other State and
the High Court may transfer any case pending before a Special Court situated in that State to any
other Special Court within the State.

(3) The Supreme Court or the High Court, as the case may be, may act under this section either on
the application of the Central Government or a party interested and any such application shall be

24 W.A. No. 856 of 2015

19
made by motion, which shall, except when the applicant is the Attorney-General for India, be
supported by an affidavit or affirmation.

This provision is somewhat similar to Section 177 of the CrPC, which stipulates that every
offence shall ordinarily be enquired into and tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction it was
committed.

In A. Beema Dowlath v. State of Tamil Nadu25, one of the issues raised was that the
offences cannot be tried in a Special Court constituted outside the places within whose territorial
jurisdiction the offences were allegedly committed.

However this contention loses sight of one important fact, namely that the jurisdiction of a
Special Court is not restricted by territorial limits. Under Section 11(1), the Central Government is
competent to constitute Special Courts for such area or areas or for such case or class or group of
cases as may be specified in the notification. Therefore, if a Special Court is constituted by the
Central Government, its territorial jurisdiction is defined in the notification issued by the Central
Government itself, in terms of Section 11(1). If a Special Court is constituted by the State
Government under Section 22, all cases in respect of which the Special Court is constituted, stand
automatically transferred to the Special Court by virtue of Section 22(4). The moment the transfer
takes place, the territorial limits stipulated in the Code of Criminal Procedure, automatically vanish.
Accordingly the Madras High Court held that this contention cannot be accepted.

Public Prosecutors.

Section 15. (1) The Central Government shall appoint a person to be the Public Prosecutor and may
appoint one or more persons to be the Additional Public Prosecutor or Additional Public
Prosecutors:

Provided that the Central Government may also appoint for any case or class or group of cases a
Special Public Prosecutor.

(2) A person shall not be qualified to be appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public
Prosecutor or a Special Public Prosecutor under this section unless he has been in practice as an

Advocate for not less than seven years or has held any post, for a period of not less than seven
years, under the Union or a State, requiring special knowledge of law.

25 W.A. No. 856 of 2015

20
(3) Every person appointed as a Public Prosecutor or an Additional Public Prosecutor or a Special
Public Prosecutor under this section shall be deemed to be a Public Prosecutor within the meaning
of clause (u) of section 2 of the Code, and the provisions of the Code shall have effect accordingly.

Under Section 15, power has been bestowed on the Central Government to appoint a Public
Prosecutor and Additional Public Prosecutor/s as required. The Central Government also possesses
the power to appoint a Special Public Prosecutor for a case or a class or group of cases. The
qualifications required for being appointed as a Public Prosecutor are that the person should have
been engaged in practice as an advocate for not less than seven years or that he has held a post
under the Union or the State requiring a special knowledge of law for not less than seven years.

The Calcutta High Court in Saraswati Rai v. Union of India 26 was of the view that the
legislative intent behind the additional qualification of a special knowledge in law in addition to the
practices experience of an advocate for conducting the cases investigated by the NIA is to achieve
the object of such legislature, i.e. to ensure a suspect against whom prima facie materials have been
collected showing his involvement in the commission of the scheduled offences is prosecuted more
effectively. According to the court this special knowledge in law meant that such person must
possess a special knowledge on the penal statute specified in the schedule of the said Act.
Consequently, the Public Prosecutor appointed under Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure
cannot stand on same footing with a Public Prosecutor appointed under the NIA Act.

The role of a Public Prosecutor in the administration of criminal justice is of considerable

significance. A Public Prosecutor is a holder of a public office and his duty is to represent the
administration of justice. He is neither a part of the investigating agency nor its mouthpiece. He is
supposed to be fair, independent, unbiased and impartial. While under the general law, i.e. under the
Code of Criminal Procedure the real function of Public Prosecutor begins with the commencement
of trial before a Court of Sessions but in a case relating to an offence punishable under the U.A (P)
Act, the Public Prosecutor has been attributed with some functions to be exercised during
investigation. In terms of Section 43D of the U.A (P) Act, the Public Prosecutor had been vested
with a duty to play a significant role even at the stage of investigation, being authorised to submit a
report in Court where investigation has not been completed, within the statutory period of 90 days
by seeking extension of time upto 180 days for completion of investigation.27

26 2011 SCC Online Cal 1227 : 2011 CriLJ 3020

27 Dr. Shruti Bedi, Indian Counter Terrorism Law, Page No. 317
21
BAIL APPLICATION

Whether an appeal against the refusal of a bail application by a Special Court lies before a single or
a division bench of the High Court. The interpretation of Section 21 of the NIA Act was under
contention in State of A.P. v. Mohd. Hussain28 the Malegaon Bomb Blast case. It was contended
that Section 21(2) of the NIA Act, 2008 prescribes that every appeal under sub-section (1) of
Section 21 shall be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the Hon'ble High Court. Applications for bail
governed by the NIA Act, 2008 are not preferred under Section 21(1) of the NIA Act but under
Section 21(4) of the NIA Act, 2008 under which, appeals to the High Court lie only against an order
of the Special Court granting or refusing bail. Therefore appeals under Section 21(4) are not
required to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of the High Court.

The appeal under Section 21(2) of the NIA Act is to be heard by a Bench of two Judges of
the High Court because of the importance that is given by Parliament to the prosecution concerning
the Scheduled Offences as these affect the sovereignty and security of the State. On the other hand,
sub-section (4) of Section 21 has made a specific provision, though sub-section (1) otherwise
excludes appeals from interlocutory orders. Section 21(4) of the NIA Act provides that an appeal
lies to the High Court against an order of the Special Court granting or refusing bail. However Sub-
section (3) which is a prior Sub-section, specifically states that “except as aforesaid”, no appeal or
revision shall lie to any court from any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory order
of a Special Court. Therefore, the phrase "except as aforesaid” takes us to Subsections (1) and (2).
Thus when anybody is aggrieved by any judgment, sentence or order including an interlocutory
order of the Special Court, no such appeal or revision shall lie to any court except as provided under
Sub-sections (1) and (2), meaning thereby only to the High Court. This is the mandate of Section
21(3) of the NIA Act.

It was further contended before the court that the appeal order refusing the bail was an
interlocutory order. The court with regard to this issue agreed with the appellant that an order
granting or refusing bail is an interlocutory order. However they stated that under Section 21(4) of
the NIA Act, the appeal against such an order lies to the High Court only, and to no other court as
laid down in Section 21(3). Thus it is only the interlocutory orders granting or refusing bail which
are made appealable, and no other interlocutory orders, which is made clear in Section 21(1). Thus

28 (2014) 1 SCC 258: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 252

22
other interlocutory orders are not appealable at all. The existence of this power was justified on the
ground that as provided under Section 19 of the Act, the trial is to proceed on a day-to-day basis and
it is to be conducted expeditiously. Therefore, no appeal is provided against any of the interlocutory
orders except the orders of either granting or refusing bail. Reason being, those orders are
concerning the liberty of the accused, and therefore, an appeal is provided against the order granting
or refusing the bail. Section 21(4), thus carves out an exception to the exclusion of interlocutory
orders, which are not appealable under Section 21(1). 29

A Division Bench of the Guwahati High Court in Jayanta Kumar Ghosh v. State of
Assam30 has interpreted the provision of Section 21(4) under the NIA Act, 2008 as also Sections
437 and 439 of the Code and held as under:

When such an arrested accused applies for bail to the Special Court, the source of power to
consider such an application for bail lies in Section 437 and not Section 439 of the Code.
Even a High Court cannot invoke its powers, under Section 439 to grant bail if it has been
refused by the Special Court nor can the High Court, by resorting to its power under Section
439, cancel bail if bail has been granted to such an accused by the Special Court. If the bail
has been refused or granted by the Special Court, the aggrieved party may, prefer an appeal,
in terms of Section 21(4) to the High Court. Such an appeal has to be heard by a Division
Bench of the High Court and in such an appeal, the merit of the order, granting or refusing
bail, can be questioned.

Anticipatory Bail

Another issue under contention is whether the Special Court under the NIA Act has the power to
grant anticipatory bail. Ancillary to this issue is that if the Special Court does not have such power
to grant anticipatory bail then, will the Court of Session and the High Court retain their power under
their original criminal jurisdiction notwithstanding the provisions contained in the NIA Act. In
reference to this it is stated that the power to grant anticipatory bail conferred by Section 438 of the
Code cannot be exercised by any court other than a Court of Session and the High Court. The
Special Court under the NIA Act has therefore no power, either expressly or by implication, to
entertain an application for anticipatory bail. The expression “bail” used in Sub-section (4) of

29 Dr. Shruti Bedi, Indian Counter Terrorism Law, Page No. 324 - 328

30 (2010) 4 GLT 1
23
Section 21 of the NIA Act means ‘regular bail which alone the Special Court is competent to grant
and not anticipatory bail which can be granted only by the Court of Session or the High Court under
Section 438 of the Code.31

However it is important to note that under Section 21(1), clarified by Sub-section(4) of the said Act,
original jurisdiction is vested with the Special Court alone under the NIA Act to entertain an
application for 'bail' which should include an application for anticipatory bail as well. The power of
the High Court is only to entertain an appeal against an order granting or refusing bail which should
include an order granting or refusing anticipatory bail as well. The said provision impliedly takes
away the jurisdiction of the Court of Session and the original criminal jurisdiction of the High Court
to entertain an application under Section438 of the Code. In fact all matters relating to offences
investigated by the NIA Act and triable by the Special Court so far as they are not inconsistent with
the provisions of the Code are to be dealt with by the Special Court and not by the Courts referred
to in the Code.32

The Kerala High Court in Bharat Mohan Rateshwar v. The National Investigation Agency33
held that:

There is also no warrant for the conclusion that the jurisdiction of the Special Court under
the NIA Act to exercise the powers of the Court of Session is confined to trial of the offence.
For, as aforesaid the Special Court is given the power to take cognizance of any offence
upon receiving a complaint or on a police report. Section 21(4) of the NIA Act contemplates
power of the Special Court to grant or refuse 'bail'. Grant or refusal of bail could be during
the stage of investigation, inquiry or trial. It need not be confined to 'trial' alone. It follows
that even with respect to pre-trial matters, the Special Court is invested with the power. The
Special Court under the NIA Act is a Court of original criminal jurisdiction having the status
of a Court of Session and it can exercise all the powers conferred on a Court of magistrate
and Court of Session save and except those powers if any, specifically denied to it and not
being hide bound by the terminological status or description of the magistrate or Court of
Session. It is necessary to hold so to make the Special Court functionally oriented. I must
also notice the special provisions provided in the NIA Act for protection of witnesses,

31 Supra Note No. 51

32 Ibid;

33 2012 SCC Online Raj 3506; 2013 CriLJ (NOC 411) 152
24
 precedence for trial by the Special Court, place of sitting, transfer of cases and the like
which all indicate that the parliament wanted matters relating to offences triable by the
Special Court to be dealt with by the NIA Act. There is no provision in the NIA Act which
expressly or even impliedly denies to the Special Court the jurisdiction to entertain an
application for anticipatory bail. On the other hand, Section 21(1) of the NIA Act refer to the
power of the Special Court to pass “any judgment, sentence or order” while Section 21(4)
refers to an 'order' granting or refusing 'bail. The expression “any order” used in Section
21(1) should therefore mean an order granting or refusing bail as well. That, so far as it is
not excluded expressly or even impliedly should mean an order granting or refusing
‘anticipatory bail as well.

Therefore we can conclude that only the Special Court has the original jurisdiction to entertain an
application for anticipatory bail with respect to offences investigated by the NIA Act and triable by
the Special Court under the NIA Act. The power of the Court of Session and of the High Court on
its original criminal jurisdiction to entertain an application for anticipatory bail under Section438 of
the Code in respect of offences investigated by the NIA and triable by the Special Court under the
NIA Act is impliedly taken away by Section21(4) of the said Act. The power of the High Court in
the matter is only appellate jurisdiction as provided under Section 21(4) of the said Act.34

Power of State Government to constitute Special Courts.

Section 22. (1) The State Government may constitute one or more Special Courts for the trial of
offences under any or all the enactments specified in the Schedule.

(2) The provisions of this Chapter shall apply to the Special Courts constituted by the State
Government under sub-section (1) and shall have effect subject to the following modifications,
namely—

(i) references to "Central Government" in sections 11 and 15 shall be construed as references to

State Government;

(ii) reference to "Agency" in sub-section (1) of section 13 shall be construed as a reference to the
"investigation agency of the State Government";

34 Supra Note No. 51

25
(iii) reference to "Attorney-General for India" in sub-section (3) of section 13 shall be construed as
reference to "Advocate-General of the State".

(3) The jurisdiction conferred by this Act on a Special Court shall, until a Special Court is
constituted by the State Government under sub-section (1) in the case of any offence punishable
under this Act, notwithstanding anything contained in the Code, be exercised by the Court of
Session of the division in which such offence has been committed and it shall have all the powers
and follow the procedure provided under this Chapter.

(4) On and from the date when the Special Court is constituted by the State Government the trial of
any offence investigated by the State Government under the provisions of this Act, which would
have been required to be held before the Special Court, shall stand transferred to that Court on the
date on which it is constituted.

e provisions of this Act, the Central Government may, by order published in the Official Gazette
make such provisions, not inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, as may appear to it to be
necessary or expedient for removing the difficulty:

Provided that no order shall be made, under this section after the expiration of two years from the
commencement of this Act.

(2) Every order made under this section shall be laid, as soon as may be after it is made, before each
House of Parliament.

AMENDMENTS IN THE ACT

• Enhances the scope of offences: which are mentioned in the schedule of the Act, such as Atomic
Energy Act, 1962. And the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act, 1967.

• This amendment enhances the scope this scope to include offences like human trafficking,
offences related to counterfeit currency or bank notes; manufacture or sale of prohibited arms;
cyber terrorism; offences under the Explosives Substances Act, 1908.

26
• Enhances the jurisdiction of the NIA: as offences of the NIA will have the power to investigate
scheduled offences committed outside India subject to international treaties and domestic laws of
other countries.

• The union government may direct the NIA to investigate such cases as if the offence has been
committed in India.

• The special court in New Delhi will have jurisdiction over these cases.

• Additional provision for special courts: the NIA act allowed the central government to
constitute special courts for the trial of scheduled offences

• Now the central government may designate sessions courts as special courts for the trial of
schedule defences but in consultation with the chief Justice of the High Court under which the
sessions court is functioning.

• When more than one special court has been designated for any area the senior most judge will
distribute cases among the.

• Further state governments may also designate sessions courts as special courts for the trial of
scheduled offences.

DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACT

1. Centre State Conflict

The State police department doesn’t cooperate in hiding the loopholes in their investigation
which lead to conflicting investigation report and miscarriage of justice. In Section 9 of the
NIA Act, 2008 it is given that the State Government to provide assistance to NIA and in
Section 6(2), the State Government has been directed to forward a report containing
information regarding any offence “as expeditiously as possible” but the interpretation of
the phrase has not been provided which has already been mentioned which scrutinizing the
ACT. This might lead to delay in investigation resulting in acquittal.

27
2. No such provision has been given as to how the NIA would coordinate with other
intelligence agencies and what are its powers in relation to that.
The NIA faces problem while coordinating with the concerned State Police Department or
the Anti-Terrorist Squad leading to ego clashes and lack of information to tackle the issue
because combating terrorism cannot solely be handled by NIA as it requires cooperation of
the other agencies and organizations. They face problem since the State officials are poorly
trained and ill-equipped. For instance, in the case of Yasin Bhatkal who was arrested by the
West Bengal police in forged currency case was later released because the police was
unaware of the fact that he was on the NIA's most wanted list. They face pressure from
Intelligence Bureau which acts as the head of all agencies in India as a result of which they
lose their independence and transparency.

3. The Central Government has been given a lot of power in the Act. The supervision and
administration of the agency solely lie in the hands of the Central Government, which
indicate wide interference and political pressure.

4. Moreover, the Central Government has the power to opine whether an offence is a
Scheduled offence or not and whether NIA can investigate or not, which shows that NIA is
not independent to take its own decisions. Section 6(3).

5. No time is mentioned as to how the State Government must forward the report to NIA. The
phrase “expeditiously as possible” needs proper interpretation because the Act has been
enacted to prevent serious and grave situation such as terror attacks.

6. In case of instituting a suit, the sanction of the Government is necessary, this might delay the
matter in course.

28
 CONCLUSION

National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 along with rules framed therein are the manifestation of
government to combat and prevent the act of terrorism in all forms and to fulfill the promise made
at various international and regional Conventions/ Treaties/agreements to fight against terrorism.
The ultimate objective of the NIA is to make the country more secure by investigating and
prosecuting offences pertaining to national security, with a transnational character. This agency is
basically formed to counter terrorism like the FBI in America but to compete with those standards
they require assistance from Government stakeholders and be given full independence in handling
cases. The existing NIA Act does have effective provisions to combat terrorism and other offences
mentioned in the act but there are also some defects and demerits which needs to be addressed
properly to make the law effective and efficient to prevent and combat terrorism. It faces hurdles
when they are imparted with any case from a State where the police department concerned have
already carried on investigation which could be faulty and lack of any specific strategy. Where there
is strain relationship between Central and State Government, national agency like NIA fails to get
proper assistance from the State Police which ultimately lead to miscarriage of justice.

Nonetheless, the NIA must be able to function independently without any political pressure, which
must be ensured by the Government as it is a federal agency and government keeps on changing.
The expectation from NIA is quite high as India doesn’t want to witness another a 26/11 which
wasa major and deliberate intelligence failure.

29
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Statutes referred

(1) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

(2) Indian Penal Code, 1860

(3) The National Investigation Agency Act, 2008

(4) The Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967

Books referred

(1) LexisNexis, Dr. Shruti Bedi, Indian Counter Terrorism Law, First Edition, 2016

Websites Referred

1. https://lawyerslaw.org/the-national-investigation-agency-act-2008/

2. https://idsa.in/system/files/nmanoharan_120514.pdf

3. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/155/National-Investigation-Agency.html

4. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/2617339/

5. http://www.humanrightsinitiative.org/programs/aj/police/india/police-reforms/
issues_paper_on_the_national_investigation_agency_act_2008.pdf

Articles Referred

1. Mitra Barsha, NATIONAL INVESTIGATION AGENCY, The World Journal On Juristic

Polity, January 2018, ISSN: 2394- 5044

30