On 31 December 2024, the National Investigation Agency (NIA) released a “Year-End Press Release” in which it noted a “record 100% conviction rate for 2024” (https://nia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/PressReleaseNew/1874_1_PR31122024.pdf).

The press release notes the following key aspects of the work of the NIA in 2024:

1. 210 accused arrested in 80 fresh cases registered
2. 408 accused chargesheeted
3. 137 properties/assets attached worth 19.57 crores
4. 662 searches across cases
5. Convictions of 68 accused in 25 cases

Within days, on 15 January 2025, the NIA declared the first conviction of 2025 with the Special NIA Court, Mumbai sentencing four accused to five years imprisonment and Rs.3000 fine in a Fake Indian Currency Notes case of Rs. 13, 67, 500. The NIA had arrested five persons in this case in 2020, of whom one person (Sohrab Hosen) is stated to have died in prison, and the court sentenced the other four accused after they pleaded guilty.

The work of the NIA has to date received little attention. As with matters of ‘national security’ there is a hesitation on the part of few civil society groups (including rights groups, journalists) and political parties to critically appraise the investigating agency and the courts dealing with such cases. There is also an opacity that makes accessing primary material – court judgments and orders – difficult. For example, in Delhi none of the orders in NIA cases of the two functioning NIA Special Courts are uploaded for public viewing. Therefore, individual defense lawyers are the only persons having access to such material. The NIA press releases provides an opportunity to critically consider the NIA and its work albeit in a limited manner.

First, it is clear that the NIA is steadily increasing its scope of operations. Section 6 of the NIA Act, 2008 lays down the procedure for the NIA to investigate cases. Police stations registering cases under Acts / Sections of law listed in the Schedule of the NIA Act are required to inform the concerned State Government. The State Government must then inform the Central Government who must determine whether the case is of a Scheduled offence, and based on the “gravity of the offence and other relevant factors” may direct the NIA to take over the investigations. The Central Government in terms of Section 6 also retains the power to suo moto direct the NIA to investigate a case of a Scheduled Offence i.e. the NIA will then in of itself register a case and begin investigations. The NIA Act presently lists eight specific Acts as Scheduled Offences including the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (UAPA) and Atomic Energy Act, 1962 and certain sections of the Indian Penal Code relating to Offences against the State and Counterfeiting / Forging of currency / bank notes and certain sections of the Arms Act, 1959 and Information Technology Act, 2000. As per earlier NIA press releases, 68 cases were registered in 2023, 73 in 2022 and 61 in 2021. Therefore, just in terms of numbers, there is a gradual increase. That these cases are primarily under the UAPA – which has received considerable criticism for its draconian and vague provisions – requires the focus that this statement appeals for. Both the UAPA and NIA Acts provide for “protected witnesses” – whose identity may be withheld from the accused. Further, the UAPA has a stringent bail condition – courts may not grant bail if the prosecution is able to establish reasonable grounds of a prima facie case. Increase in cases is confirmed when specific regions are considered. A perusal of the NIA website (https://nia.gov.in/nia-cases.htm) reveals an increase in cases registered in the last ten years, especially in New Delhi. Chhattisgarh (NIA Raipur) sees a dramatic increase of cases in the year 2024. NCRB data, cited in the Rajya Sabha, also marks this trend with an increase of 796 to 1005 UAPA cases registered in India from 2020 to 2022 (https://sansad.in/getFile/annex/265/AU1025_oZK7Iu.pdf?source=pqars). Jammu and Kashmir stands at the highest with a total of 947 cases in this three year period.

Second, while the number of cases are rising, only a limited number of these cases relate to a specific overt act of violence. For example, PUDR has accessed NIA press releases for 18 out of the 25 cases that saw a conviction in 2024 (Chart below). Only two of these cases relate to a clearly identified overt act: the Chhatisgarh CPI (Maoist) attack case of March 2014 where eleven CRPF personnel, four State police personnel and one civilian were said to have been killed, and the Bihar railway IED planting case of 2016 where an IED was defused before it could explode. Only 1 of the 18 cases reviewed saw seizure of arms/ammunition (2012 Jharkhand CPI (Maoist) case). Cases are primarily registered under the UAPA which, in addition to unlawful activities, criminalizes terrorist acts and organizations. While the UAPA, similar to regular criminal law, criminalizes acts/omissions relating to the actual overt physical act – for example conspiracy, aiding and abetting etc – the UAPA is unique in two respects. Firstly, the acts/omissions criminalised are broader than regular criminal law as for example Section 18 of UAPA (titled “Punishment for conspiracy etc”) criminalises advising and facilitating of not only a terrorist act but also “any act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act”. There has been negligible judicial rulings on these phrases. Secondly, UAPA criminalises association and support of proscribed terrorist organizations. Once again, there has been limited judicial rulings on these phrases and more often only in the context of grant/denial of bail where the courts refrain from detailed rulings on merits. Consequently, in the absence of clear judicial directions, there is a real concern of investigative overreach and the need for close and continuous attention to the work of the agency. A striking example is one of the 25 cases that relates to 2019 human trafficking case involving Bangladeshi girls, who were forced into prostitution after being smuggled into India. It is unclear why this would even fall under the jurisdiction of the NIA.

Third, delay is the rule. As most cases are under the UAPA, where bail is often the exception, this is a serious concern. Of the 18 cases, the following is the break up in relation to when the case was registered: 2012 (1), 2014 (1), 2015 (1), 2016 (2), 2018 (2), 2019 (5), 2020 (4), 2021 (2). The sentences awarded reveal that in most of the cases the accused would have already served – or close to serving – the sentence awarded. The exceptions are four cases where life imprisonment was directed and one case where an accused who plead guilty was sentenced to 20 years. With a stringent threshold for bail under the UAPA (available material does not reveal if any of those convicted had been granted bail during trial), even for offences where there is no minimum mandatory jail time and the accused if convicted may be let off with only a fine (sections 38 and 39 UAPA), the delay in trial is not only an injustice to the accused but also allows for the cynical practice of “guilty plea” where accused plead guilty not at the initial stage when charges are argued and framed but subsequently due to the slow pace of trial. While the accused may have a right to plead guilty, the practice is not appropriate as cases of terrorism and national security must not turn on factors other than proper investigations and fair and just trial procedures.

PUDR emphasizes the need to continuously look closely at the investigations and prosecutions of the NIA beyond statistics and headlines.

Chart of Five Sample Cases
(Please note: This chart is based on publicly available press releases of the NIA available on https://nia.gov.in/press-releases.htm AND Only relevant information provided)

Harish Dhawan and Paramjeet Singh
(Secretaries)

Please follow and like us: