Swami Vivekananda University & Anr. v. The State of West Bengal & Ors., 2025
The Court clarified the scope and objective of Section 94 BNSS as being aligned with truth-seeking and preventing failure of justice.
Judgement Details
Court
Calcutta High Court
Date of Decision
11 September 2025
Judges
Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The petitioners challenged a notice issued under Section 94 of BNSS by the Investigating Officer, directing production of records of all students who received government scholarships from 2020 to 2025.
-
The case arose from allegations of mass examination malpractice, including leakage of question papers, orchestrated by the Centre-in-Charge at the affiliated institute.
-
Petitioners argued there was no nexus between the University and the alleged offence, asserting the impugned notice amounted to a roving inquiry.
-
The State countered that preliminary enquiry revealed that both the institute and University were managed by the same Trustee, and that government scholarships may have been misused.
Issues
-
Whether Section 94 of BNSS empowers the Investigating Officer to demand records from an institution not directly named in the FIR?
-
Whether such a notice amounts to a roving or fishing inquiry, and if it violates Article 226 protections?
-
Whether production of the documents was "necessary or desirable" for the purpose of investigation?
Judgement
-
The High Court dismissed the petition.
-
It held that Section 94 BNSS is a supplementary power meant to aid in unearthing the truth during an investigation or trial.
-
The court found that prima facie material in the case diary justified the Investigating Officer’s request for documents.
-
Interfering with such an investigatory process at this stage would encroach upon investigative discretion, which is not the domain of the court while exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226.
Held
-
Section 94 BNSS enables authorities to seek production of documents or things not already on record but deemed relevant to an investigation.
-
The court must not step into the investigative domain unless there is clear evidence of malafide, which was not present here.
-
The impugned notice was valid, and investigative necessity had been sufficiently established by the State.
Analysis
-
The Court clarified the scope and objective of Section 94 BNSS as being aligned with truth-seeking and preventing failure of justice.
-
By comparing it with Section 91 CrPC, the judgment reinforced that BNSS provisions are not narrower, but allow for expansive interpretation in appropriate investigative contexts.
-
It reaffirms the principle that judicial interference in ongoing investigations should be rare and restrained.
-
The case also underscores that shared management or common trusteeship between institutions may justify broader document requisitions.