Today, Calcutta High Court heard a plea based on a whistleblower's complaint and requested a National Investigation Agency (NIA) investigation into the reported involvement of individuals from Pakistan and Iran serving as seafarers on ships carrying the Indian flag.

The petitioner's counsel highlighted that the respondents had not been served with the documents and expressed the petitioner's reluctance to serve them until the Court deliberated on the issue. They emphasized the need for an NIA investigation under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) due to the unique circumstances of the case, aiming to prevent any potential tampering of evidence.

Upon hearing the plea, a division bench of Chief Justice TS Sivagnanam and Justice Supratim Bhattacharya called for a report on the issue by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and held:

Based on the peculiar circumstances of the case, the petitioner has not served the respondent to avoid tampering of evidence. An RTI made by the petitioner before the DG Shipping has revealed that the recruitment companies are authorised to recruit Indian seafarers only.''

The petitioner, identifying as a whistleblower, asserted that they possessed evidence in the form of documented copies revealing the illicit activities of recruitment agencies. These agencies were allegedly involved in unlawfully placing individuals from countries such as Pakistan and Iran as seafarers on Indian vessels.

The argument put forth emphasized the severe implications of these actions, highlighting the imminent danger they posed to India's national security. Not only were these actions in violation of India's Maritime Laws and Conventions, but they were also portrayed as constituting a serious offense under the Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA). The assertion was that these actions would necessitate investigation by the National Investigation Agency (NIA) as a predicate offense under the UAPA.

The petitioners conveyed that they had duly notified the Ministry of Home Affairs regarding the issue at hand. However, they highlighted the challenge in serving the respondents, expressing concern that such service might lead to the destruction or tampering of crucial evidence, hence the delay in serving them.