Limited judicial review of NIA investigation choice: court should not replace the Executive's statutory decision on relevant material.

The text explains that judicial review of the Executive's choice of investigating agency under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 is limited to legality and the decision-making process. If the Central Government acts on relevant material and at multiple levels considers the matter before directing the NIA to investigate a scheduled offence, the court should not substitute its own view, and the executive direction remains valid. It also states that writ appeals were maintainable because the proceedings were in substance under Article 226, challenged an executive decision, and the bar relating to criminal jurisdiction did not apply. The judgment is described as upholding the NIA reference and restoring dismissal of the writ petitions.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the Court can interfere with the Executive's choice of investigating agency in a criminal investigation under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008; (ii) whether the writ appeals were maintainable against the Single Judge's order.

Issue (i): whether the Court can interfere with the Executive's choice of investigating agency in a criminal investigation under the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008.

Analysis: The power under Section 6(5) of the National Investigation Agency Act, 2008 permits the Central Government to direct the Agency to investigate a scheduled offence suo motu where it forms an opinion based on the material available. Judicial review of such executive choice is limited to examining legality and the decision-making process, not substituting the Court's view for the Executive's opinion. Where the record shows that relevant material was considered and the decision was taken at multiple levels, interference is unwarranted.

Conclusion: The executive order directing investigation by the National Investigation Agency was valid and was not liable to be set aside.

Issue (ii): whether the writ appeals were maintainable against the Single Judge's order.

Analysis: The petitions were in substance under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and the challenge was to an executive decision rather than to a criminal adjudication. Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 provides for an appeal from an order of a Single Judge in such proceedings. The bar applicable to matters connected with criminal jurisdiction did not apply on these facts.

Conclusion: The writ appeals were maintainable.

Final Conclusion: The judgment upheld the Central Government's decision to assign the investigation to the National Investigation Agency and restored dismissal of the writ petitions, thereby allowing the appeals.

Ratio Decidendi: A court will not interfere with the Executive's choice of investigating agency if the decision is taken under statutory power on relevant material and the decision-making process is not vitiated by illegality, irrationality, or procedural impropriety.

---