Overview The Supreme Court on 16 March 2026 declined to interfere with a Calcutta High Court order that refused to stay the investigation by the NIA into the Beldanga violence in Murshidabad district. The apex court held that the High Court had taken a balanced view and directed it to continue hearing the matter as per its schedule. Key Developments Bench comprising CJI Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi dismissed West Bengal’s challenge to the High Court’s order. The High Court had earlier rejected a stay on the City Sessions Court’s order directing transfer of case materials to the NIA. Senior Advocate Supreme Court ’s 11 Feb 2026 direction required the High Court to examine whether the UAPA was attracted. Justice Bagchi clarified that the NIA needs the case diary to assess the applicability of UAPA, and there is no conflict between the trial court’s order and the Supreme Court’s direction. Important Facts The dispute originated when the Union Ministry of Home Affairs, on 28 Jan 2026 , invoked Section 6(5) of the NIA Act to take over Beldanga Police Station Case No. 51 of 2026. The case involves allegations that a group carried diesel and other inflammable materials to set fire to shops and vehicles during communal unrest. The State of West Bengal argued that the FIR was filed under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita , the West Bengal Maintenance of Public Order Act , and the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act , not under UAPA . Hence, it claimed there was no legal basis for NIA’s involvement. The High Court observed that the Supreme Court’s order required the NIA to submit a report on whether UAPA provisions were attracted, which necessitates access to the case diary. Consequently, the trial court’s order to hand over the diary was seen as facilitating compliance with the Supreme Court’s direction, not contradicting it. UPSC Relevance Understanding the hierarchy of courts and the principle of judicial review (GS2: Polity). Comprehending the scope of the UAPA and its interplay with the NIA Act . Insights into federal‑state relations when the Centre invokes central legislation for a state matter. Application of newer criminal statutes like the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita alongside older state laws. Way Forward The High Court is expected to examine the NIA’s report and decide if the factual matrix justifies invoking UAPA . A clear demarcation between ordinary criminal offences and terrorism‑related provisions will aid future Centre‑State coordination in law‑enforcement matters. Aspirants should monitor the final judgment for its implications on the use of central investigative powers and the interpretation of anti‑terror legislation.