The Delhi High Court on Friday, 24 July allowed the withdrawal of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) that sought a direction to the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to probe an alleged security breach near Parliament during the July 20 'Sansad Chalo' protest over the alleged NEET paper leak. The court made clear that the statutory framework under the NIA Act, 2008 places the decision to order an NIA investigation squarely with the Central government, not the judiciary.

What the Court Ruled

A Division Bench of Chief Justice D.K. Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia permitted petitioner Satish Kumar Aggarwal to withdraw the plea, granting him liberty to pursue other legal remedies, including approaching the relevant authorities directly. The bench formally dismissed the writ petition as withdrawn.

'Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner will be constrained to withdraw the petition, with liberty to take recourse to any other legal remedy which may be available to him under law, including the remedy of approaching the authorities concerned. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed,' the bench ordered.

Key Legal Observations

Throughout the hearing, the court repeatedly stressed that the NIA is an investigating agency, not an inquiry body, and that its jurisdiction can only be invoked through the procedure prescribed under Section 6 of the NIA Act. An FIR must first be registered, after which the concerned officer forwards the report through the prescribed channel before the Central government decides whether the case merits NIA involvement.

'Tell us what is the statutory mechanism for invoking NIA jurisdiction... NIA is not an inquiry agency. It is an investigation agency... There has to be an FIR. Thereafter the whole procedure is prescribed. How can you ask us to first get an inquiry conducted and then ask them to conduct an investigation by the NIA?' the bench orally observed.

The court also declined the petitioner's request for a police status report, noting that FIRs had been registered only days earlier and that authorities were already seized of the matter.

What the Petitioner Argued

Appearing for the petitioner, advocate Barun Kumar Sinha contended that the 'gravity of offence and other relevant factors' under Section 6(3) of the NIA Act warranted investigation by a specialised agency. He submitted that roads had been blocked, Metro stations closed, and fundamental rights violated during the protest.

The PIL, filed by Aggarwal — a former Vice President of the Akhil Bharat Hindu Mahasabha — alleged that the July 20 march involved obstruction of public movement, damage to public and private property, assaults on journalists, attempts to breach security near Parliament House, and injuries to police personnel. The petition further alleged that the participation of political leaders and certain organisations raised concerns about whether organised or external elements were involved in activities prejudicial to public order and national security.

Centre's Position

Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Centre, submitted that if the petitioner sought investigation by any other specialised agency, notice could be issued. However, the bench reiterated that the choice of investigating agency rests with competent authorities under the law, not with the court.

What Happens Next

With the PIL withdrawn, Aggarwal retains the option of approaching the Central government or other relevant authorities directly to seek an NIA or specialised-agency probe. The matter now returns to the executive domain, where the NIA Act places it. The broader NEET paper leak controversy and the events of July 20 continue to be a flashpoint in national politics, with multiple investigations reportedly under way.