P&H High Court: Centre to Assess LPU Violence NIA Probe on Cyber Terrorism

• The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Central government to consider an NIA probe into the LPU violence.
• The violence at Lovely Professional University was sparked by false rumors of a student's sexual assault.
• Police investigation indicated prima facie evidence of cyber terrorism under Section 66F of the IT Act.
• Section 66F is a scheduled offence under the NIA Act, potentially allowing federal agency involvement.
• The court directed the State to report the offence to the Centre within 72 hours, and the Centre to decide within seven days.

This ruling from the Punjab and Haryana High Court carries significant implications, particularly concerning the intersection of online activities and real-world violence.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a significant directive, instructing the Central government to assess whether the National Investigation Agency (NIA) should assume control of the ongoing investigation into the violence and arson that occurred at Lovely Professional University (LPU). This order, stemming from a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) titled "Ravi Raj v Union of India & Ors", initially sought a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) inquiry into the events. The unrest at the LPU campus was reportedly triggered by the dissemination of false rumors concerning an alleged sexual assault involving a female student.

During the course of its investigation, the Punjab Police uncovered evidence that, on a preliminary assessment, suggests the applicability of cyber terrorism provisions under Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000. This finding is pivotal, as it introduces a federal dimension to what began as a local law enforcement matter. The High Court's bench, comprising Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor, noted this crucial development on Wednesday, setting the stage for a potential shift in investigative authority.

The legal basis for the High Court's directive rests on the classification of Section 66F of the Information Technology Act, 2000, as a scheduled offence under the National Investigation Agency Act. This designation empowers the NIA to investigate such crimes, which are deemed to have national security implications. The NIA Act outlines specific procedures for state governments when a scheduled offence is identified.

Specifically, Section 6 of the NIA Act mandates that a State government, upon being informed of the commission of a scheduled offence, must forward a detailed report to the Central government with utmost expediency. This mechanism ensures that serious offenses with potential wider ramifications can be brought under federal scrutiny and investigation by the specialized agency. The court's emphasis on this statutory requirement underscores the gravity of the preliminary findings by the state police regarding cyber terrorism.

In light of the prima facie indication of cyber terrorism in the LPU violence, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed strict timelines for both the State and Central governments. The State government has been directed to submit its comprehensive report, detailing the commissioning of the offence in accordance with Section 6 of the NIA Act, to the Central government within a firm deadline of 72 hours. This expedited reporting requirement highlights the court's view on the urgency of the matter.

Following the submission of this report, the Central government is then tasked with making an appropriate decision regarding the potential NIA probe within seven days. This dual directive ensures a rapid assessment of whether the federal agency should take over the investigation from the Punjab Police. The court's clear instructions aim to prevent undue delays in determining the most suitable investigative body for a case involving complex elements of online incitement and real-world violence.

This ruling from the Punjab and Haryana High Court carries significant implications, particularly concerning the intersection of online activities and real-world violence. The potential for the National Investigation Agency to intervene in state police investigations, especially when elements of cyber terrorism under Section 66F of the IT Act are prima facie indicated, marks a critical development. This case, "Ravi Raj v Union of India", demonstrates how incidents involving the spread of online misinformation that culminates in physical unrest can trigger federal agency involvement.

The court's decision underscores the expanding scope of the NIA's jurisdiction, moving beyond traditional forms of terrorism to encompass digital instigation. It signals that authorities are increasingly prepared to treat the weaponization of online platforms for spreading false narratives, leading to public disorder and violence, as a matter requiring federal attention. This development could necessitate a re-evaluation of cyber incident response protocols for various entities, as jurisdictional shifts in investigations become a more tangible possibility when online actions result in real-world consequences.

This ruling highlights the potential for the National Investigation Agency (NIA) to take over state police investigations when elements of cyber terrorism under Section 66F of the IT Act, a scheduled offence, are prima facie indicated. Lawyers should advise clients that incidents involving online misinformation leading to real-world violence could trigger federal agency involvement, necessitating a review of cyber incident response protocols and potential jurisdictional shifts in investigations.

Source: Original reporting via legal news outlet