In a major legal setback for the West Bengal government, the Supreme Court of India on Monday refused to interfere with the Calcutta High Court’s order directing the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to proceed with its probe into the Beldanga violence. A bench comprising Chief Justice Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed the State’s petition seeking a stay on the central agency’s investigation, reinforcing the High Court’s stance on the matter.

Allegations of Police Non-Cooperation: The case has been mired in controversy since the NIA took over. The central agency had repeatedly moved the courts alleging that the West Bengal Police were refusing to share critical evidence, including the case diary and details of the accused. The NIA contended that such “non-cooperation” by the state authorities was hindering a fair probe into what they describe as a “pre-planned and targeted” attack that took place in Murshidabad’s Beldanga in early 2025.

The Apex Court’s Ruling: While the State argued that the invocation of the stringent UAPA (Unlawful Activities Prevention Act) was unjustified for what they called a “spontaneous outburst,” the Supreme Court maintained that the High Court had taken a balanced view. The bench clarified that the NIA is duty-bound to submit a status report to the Calcutta High Court in a sealed cover. It will be up to the High Court to determine, based on the evidence collected, whether terrorism charges are applicable. By refusing to stay the proceedings, the SC has effectively ordered the state police to comply with the transfer of documents.

Political Implications: The timing of this ruling is crucial as the state moves toward the 2026 Assembly Elections. The Beldanga violence, which saw widespread arson and highway blockades following the death of a migrant worker, has become a flashpoint between the TMC and BJP. With the Supreme Court clearing the hurdles for the NIA, the investigation is expected to gather pace, potentially leading to high-profile arrests in Murshidabad. For the state government, this verdict represents a significant defeat in its attempt to keep the investigation within the local police’s jurisdiction.