Now the foundational balance between the Union and the States is facing a significant judicial test. The Supreme Court on Tuesday, April 21, issued a notice to the Centre on a writ petition challenging the NIA Act federal structure challenge. The plea argues that the National Investigation Agency (NIA) Act of 2008 is “unconstitutional” because it vests a central agency with “police” powers. Therefore, the petitioner contends that this is an incursion into the legislative domain of states, as “police” is a subject falling under List-II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule
Add businessleague.in as a Preferred Source
Meanwhile, the bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta has described the issue as one of “vital importance affecting the entire country.
But for the petitioner, an advocate previously booked in a high-profile case, the challenge is also deeply personal.
Also Read |Tamil Nadu Voter List Purge: 97 Lakh Names Deleted in SIR Phase 1
Why the NIA Act Federal Structure Challenge Matters
Now we must look at the structural integrity of the Indian Constitution. The petition argues that the framers of the Constitution never intended for the Centre to exercise policing powers over the States. Therefore, the NIA Act federal structure challenge touches upon the very core of cooperative federalism.
An Encroachment on State Power
First, the petitioner claims that “police” and “public order” are exclusive domains of the State governments. Then, the NIA Act allows the Union to bypass state consent to investigate local crimes. Thus, the plea describes the Act as a “colorable exercise of legislative power.” Next, the bench noted that if the NIA lacks the power to register an FIR, the validity of all its past investigations could be at risk. Therefore, the stakes for national security and state autonomy are equally high.
Police Powers vs. Central Agencies: The Legislative Gap
Now there is a fine line between a “force” and a “police force.” Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave contended that no central agency has been vested with full “police” powers, except the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB) in specific circumstances. Therefore, the NIA’s status as a “police officer” is a legal anomaly.
The Seventh Schedule Debate
First, Entry 2 of the State List clearly mentions “police.” Then, the petitioner argues that while Parliament can constitute any “force,” it cannot constitute a force with the powers of a police officer. Thus, the NIA Act’s Sections 3 and 6(5) are seen as direct violations of this entry. Next, if the NIA is declared a police force, it effectively ousts the jurisdiction of the local state police. Therefore, the Supreme Court must decide if the Union has overstepped its bounds.
The Mohammed Mubarak Case: PFI, UAPA, and Retaliation Murders
Now we must understand the origins of this specific petition. It was filed by Mohammed Mubarak AI, a Kerala-based advocate. He was arrayed as an accused in a case (RC-2/2022) registered by the NIA involving members of the Popular Front of India (PFI).
Sequence of Events
First, the case concerned the murder of a BJP leader named Sreenivasan in April 2022. Then, the state police conducted the initial investigation without alleging any “scheduled offense.” Thus, the NIA invoked Section 6(5) to take over the case, adding charges under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). Next, the petitioner was arrested and remained in custody for over a year before being released on bail. Therefore, he argues that the NIA’s takeover rendered the state investigation “otiose” and caused grave prejudice to the accused.
Also Read |Tamil Nadu Voter List Purge: 97 Lakh Names Deleted in SIR Phase 1
Section 6(5): The Power to Take Over State Investigations
Now the primary “villain” of the petition is Section 6(5) of the NIA Act. This provision empowers the Central government to direct the agency to investigate a scheduled offense suo motu (on its own motion). Therefore, the state’s consent is not required for the NIA to step in.
Unbridled Powers
First, the petitioner argues that Sections 6 to 10 confer “unbridled powers” without any clear guidelines. Then, the Centre can use its own “opinion” to decide when a crime warrants national intervention. Thus, a local murder can be elevated to a national security threat at the Union’s discretion. Next, the plea seeks a direction that if the Act is not struck down, the Union must at least frame appropriate rules for exercising these powers. Therefore, the lack of safeguards is a major pillar of the challenge.
Doctrine of Pith and Substance in Federal Disputes
Now the court will likely apply the “Doctrine of Pith and Substance” to resolve this conflict. This doctrine looks at the “true nature” of a law to determine which list it belongs to. Therefore, the NIA Act federal structure challenge will hinge on whether the Act is “about” national security or “about” policing.
A Parallel Police Force?
First, the Union will likely argue that the Act falls under Entry 1 of the Union List (Defense of India). Then, the petitioner will counter that the “substance” of the Act is purely about investigation and arrest—traditional police functions. Thus, the court must decide if the “incidental encroachment” on state power is permissible. Next, the petitioner argues that the Act creates a “parallel national police structure,” which the Constitution does not permit.
Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave’s Arguments in Court
Now the hearing on Tuesday featured a robust defense of state rights by Siddharth Dave. He emphasized that the NIA’s powers under Section 3 are “sweeping” and lack precedent in other central agencies.
The Lack of Rules
First, Dave argued that the NIA Act declares its officers to be police officers without a specific notification to that effect. Then, he pointed out that even under the PMLA, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) is not treated as a police force. Thus, the NIA stands alone as a central body with overriding police powers. Next, he referred to the Tofan Singh case to highlight that only the NCB has similar recognitions. Therefore, he urged the court to examine the legislative competence of Parliament to create such a force.
Also Read |Tamil Nadu Voter List Purge: 97 Lakh Names Deleted in SIR Phase 1
The Comparison: Why the ED is Not a Police Force
Now a common question arises: if the ED can arrest people, why is the NIA different? The petition clarifies this distinction. Under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act, the ED is an administrative agency, not a police force.
The Charging Power
First, the ED does not file a chargesheet in the traditional sense; it files a “complaint.” Then, NIA officers are specifically conferred the powers of a police officer to register FIRs and file final reports under the CrPC. Thus, the NIA behaves exactly like state police, whereas the ED does not. Next, this “police” label is what triggers the Seventh Schedule conflict. Therefore, the NIA Act federal structure challenge is focused on the type of power, not just the use of power.
What Happens Next: Hearing Set for July 14
Now the ball is in the Centre’s court. Additional Solicitor General Aishwarya Bhati has been asked to file a counter-affidavit within four weeks. Therefore, we will soon see the Union’s formal defense of the Act.
The Timeline Ahead
First, the petitioner has two weeks after the Centre’s response to file a rejoinder. Then, the Supreme Court has listed the matter for further hearing on July 14, 2026. Thus, the summer break will provide time for all parties to sharpen their legal arguments. Next, this case joins other pending petitions, including a 2020 suit by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging the same Act. Therefore, a larger bench may eventually be required to settle the matter once and for all.
Common Questions Answered
What is the NIA Act federal structure challenge?
Now it is a legal petition in the Supreme Court arguing that the NIA Act of 2008 violates the division of powers because “police” is a state subject.
Why does the petitioner think the NIA Act is unconstitutional?
First, because Entry 2 of the State List gives policing powers only to states. Then, because the Act allows the Centre to take over local investigations without state consent.
Who is the petitioner in this case?
Next, it is Mohammed Mubarak AI, a Kerala-based lawyer and PFI activist who was investigated by the NIA.
What did the Supreme Court say on Tuesday?
So the bench issued a notice to the Central government, noting that the issues are of “vital importance” to the entire country.
Is the NIA a police force?
Finally, according to the NIA Act, its officers have the powers of a police officer. Therefore, the court must decide if Parliament had the power to grant them such status.
Also Read |Tamil Nadu Voter List Purge: 97 Lakh Names Deleted in SIR Phase 1
End…
Add businessleague.in as a Preferred Source
