NIA’s Attempt to Join ED Probe on Coimbatore Blast Leads to Agency Clash

On October 23, 2022, a vehicle‑borne bomb ripped through the Arulmigu Kottai Sangameshwarar temple precinct in Coimbatore, killing only the suicide bomber, Jameesha Mubeen. The explosion, linked to an Islamic State‑inspired cell, set off a multi‑agency probe that has lingered for four years.

The National Investigation Agency (NIA) has been the primary investigative authority, arresting more than a dozen suspects and piecing together the terror plot. Meanwhile, the Enforcement Directorate (ED) stepped in last June after uncovering a money‑laundering trail that financed the attack.

According to the ED, the bomb‑makers, identified as Umar Faaruq and Sheikh Hidayatullah, ran a sham Covid‑19 vaccination certificate scheme in 2021‑22. The fake certificates generated illicit proceeds, which were then funneled through accomplices – Aboo Hanifa, Pavas Rahman and Sharan Mariappan – to buy explosives and other material for the Coimbatore blast.

In a bid to interrogate four key accused – Faaruq, Hidayatullah, Hanifa and Rahman – the ED approached a Chennai special court, seeking several days of questioning to untangle the full financial web. The court initially seemed amenable, but the NIA threw a curveball.

Representing the NIA, counsel argued that while the ED could certainly question the suspects, the agency’s chief investigating officer and his team should be allowed into the room. The rationale was simple: any new confession or detail could reshape NIA’s own case, and the agency wanted to ensure it didn’t miss a beat.

The court, however, pushed back. On September 10, the judge ruled that allowing the NIA to sit alongside the ED would set a precarious precedent, effectively refusing the request. A senior unnamed government official later noted that Indian criminal procedure does not expressly permit two independent investigative bodies to conduct a joint interrogation.

The decision has now turned into a turf battle, with both agencies accusing each other of overreach. While the NIA sees the ED’s financial probe as a “third‑party” effort that could benefit from its insight, the ED maintains that its mandate over money‑laundering cases is clear and unassailable.

For now, the interrogation proceeds under the ED’s sole stewardship, and the NIA remains on the sidelines, waiting to see whether any fresh leads emerge from the financial questioning that could feed back into its terror‑related investigation.