The Supreme Court in the case Agnostos Theos V. Union Of India & Others observed and has dismissed the Public Interest Litigation, PIL wherein seeking the setting up of a National Internal Security Council to deal with organised crime in the country which include smuggling, inter-state trafficking, cybercrimes and the large scale political violence.
The Public Interest Litigation, PIL moved also seek for all the national and state level investigation agencies which needs to be brought under the control of such body.
The Apex Court in the case observed and has dismissed the PIL on the ground that the reliefs seek for were in the nature of policy and in the domain of the legislature and hence the writ jurisdiction of the court could not be exercised for the same.
The bench comprising of Chief Justice D Y Chandrachud, Justice J B Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra in the case observed that the directions which have been sought in order to pertain to the legislative and policy domain.
Therefore, the said court would not be justified in exercising the jurisdiction under Article 32 of the Constitution.
However, the relief seek before the court in an PIL also included the directions to the Centre to set up national level agency to deal with crimes such as smuggling, large-scale political violence, the narcotics insurgency, inter-state trafficking etc.
The court in the case observed and also seek for the setting up of the National Internal Security Coordination Council which being under the control of a committee set up by the President and on the recommendation of the Chief Justice.
Further, it also seeks for a committee to formulate the guidelines for appointment, transfer and conduct of the members of the Council. The Public Interest litigation, PIL moved before the court also sought for a declaration that once the said Council is set up, all national and state level investigation agencies would come under its direct control and supervision.
Accordingly, the court dismissed the PIL.
The counsel, AOR. Adv. Sureshan P and Adv. Shivam Yadav appeared for the petitioner.