U/S 94 BNSS | Investigating Officer Is The Best Judge Of What’s Desirable During Probe: Calcutta HC Upholds Summons In Scholarship Scam Case

“Judiciary Cannot Interfere With Statutory Police Powers Unless Process Is Abused” – Calcutta High Court dismissed a constitutional writ petition filed by Swami Vivekananda University challenging a police summons issued under Section 94 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023. The summons sought details of students who received government scholarships from the university over the last five academic years in connection with an ongoing criminal investigation into a massive exam malpractice and scholarship fraud.

In Swami Vivekananda University & Anr. v. State of West Bengal & Ors. (WPA 17617 of 2025), the Court observed:

“The materials collected in course of the investigation, as is reflected from the case diary, prima facie satisfy the requirement in respect of the documents called for... To assign further reason would amount to interfering with the investigation itself, which would be transgressing into a domain not called for under Article 226.”

“Scholarship Scam Probe Justifies Document Production Under BNSS; No Roving Inquiry” – Calcutta HC Declines Interference

The case arose from a cognizable FIR lodged on June 18, 2025, by one Gopi Bondhu Ganguly, alleging a well-orchestrated examination malpractice and scholarship fraud during the May 2025 even-semester exams conducted by the West Bengal State Council of Technical & Vocational Education and Skill Development at Regent Institute of Science & Technology (RIST).

Among the grave charges were:

• Premature opening of sealed question papers

• Unauthorized leakage via WhatsApp/Telegram

• Provision of ready-made answers to students

• Tampering of CCTV footage

• Improper financial benefit to examination officials

• Issuance of fake scholarships

The FIR invoked serious penal provisions, including Sections 112, 406, 409, and 318 of the BNS, Sections 3–5 of the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, and provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

As part of the ongoing investigation, the police issued a notice under Section 94 of the BNSS to the Registrar of Swami Vivekananda University, asking for records of all government scholarship beneficiaries from 2020–2025.

University Claimed No Nexus With the Crime Scene; Court Says “Prima Facie Connection Exists”

The petitioners argued that the University had no control or affiliation with RIST, the institute where the alleged malpractices occurred. They further contended that:

“The impugned notice seeks information not connected with the FIR. The police cannot conduct a roving inquiry into documents unrelated to the case.”

It was also submitted that all scholarship disbursements were carried out entirely by the State Government, and the University only verified eligibility as a conduit.

However, the State contended that the investigation had revealed financial links between the Trust managing both RIST and Swami Vivekananda University, and thus, the production of documents was “desirable” for uncovering financial irregularities involving scholarship misappropriations.

“Section 94 BNSS Is A Supplementary Power To Unearth Truth”: Court Defines Scope Of Summons

Justice Tirthankar Ghosh, in a detailed analysis, outlined the scope of Section 94 of the BNSS, stating:

“The ultimate object behind Section 94 of BNSS is to confer power… to produce document or other thing which the Court or police authorities deems relevant and cogent for conducting investigation… which are not already on record or are required for purposes of investigation.”

He reiterated that the section empowers police officers to summon documents when they are “necessary or desirable”, and that subjective satisfaction of the officer is the threshold for issuance of such notices.

The Court observed: “Section 94 is a procedural instrument enabling issuance of summons for the production of documents... The provision is conditional upon satisfaction that production is essential or advantageous to the progress of investigation.”

Relying on King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad (AIR 1945 PC 18), J.A.C. Saldanha v. State of Bihar and Neeharika Infrastructure v. State of Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Court reiterated the principle that:

“The judiciary should not interfere with the police in matters which are within their province. There is a statutory right on the part of the police to investigate the circumstances of an alleged cognizable crime.”

Petition Dismissed; Court Refuses to Quash Police Notice Under Section 94

The Court rejected the petitioner’s claim that the document requisition was an abuse of process and concluded that:

“The petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference by this Court.”

Consequently, WPA 17617 of 2025 was dismissed, and the police were allowed to proceed with their demand for student scholarship records under the impugned Section 94 BNSS notice.

This decision marks a significant judicial affirmation of the investigatory powers under the BNSS, 2023, particularly Section 94, which replaces Section 91 of the CrPC. It clearly lays down that once an FIR discloses prima facie material, the police can seek relevant documents from third parties if it aids investigation.

Importantly, the judgment warns against premature interference in criminal probes through writ jurisdiction, reminding petitioners that the investigating agency's domain cannot be curtailed lightly, especially when public interest and corruption in education are at stake.

Date of Decision: 03 September 2025