Facts
On 04.04.2026, the petitioner’s son, Saikat Saha, was allegedly forcibly taken to East Agartala Police Station by Rabindranath Ghosh, an employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation, and Joy Debnath, a Special Police Officer. He was allegedly assaulted, humiliated and tortured in the presence of police personnel during the intervening night of 04–05.04.2026.
Source reference: p.2, para. 1CCTV footage of the police station recorded the incident and was ordered to be seized by the Court on 06.05.2026.
Source reference: p.2, para. 2A Special Investigation Team (SIT) was constituted on 14.05.2026, and its report prima facie confirmed the petitioner’s allegations against the two accused persons.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 3–4The accused were subsequently terminated from service and charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court.
Source reference: p.2, para. 6Police personnel, including the Officer-in-Charge of East Agartala Police Station, were suspended and departmental proceedings were initiated against them.
Source reference: p.2, para. 5; p.3, paras. 10–11During the proceedings, the Court noticed that in another case, CCTV footage from a police station was unavailable because the system had remained non-functional around the time of the alleged incident.
Source reference: p.3, paras. 12–14Issues
Whether the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others regarding installation, functioning, maintenance and preservation of CCTV footage in police stations were being implemented effectively in Tripura.
Source reference: p.4, paras. 16–19; p.6, para. 21Whether the Officer-in-Charge of each police station should be made specifically responsible for the functioning, maintenance, recording, preservation and backup of CCTV footage, and for reporting periods of malfunctioning to the District Level Oversight Committee.
Source reference: p.5, paras. 18–19; p.6, paras. 22–24What directions were necessary to prevent the non-availability of CCTV footage during alleged incidents of assault or custodial misconduct in police stations.
Source reference: p.3, paras. 12–15; p.6, paras. 21–24Law Applied
The Court relied principally on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Others, SLP (Criminal) No. 3543 of 2020, decided on 02.12.2020.
Source reference: no citationThat judgment requires every State and Union Territory to install CCTV cameras in all police stations, including at entry and exit points, lock-ups, corridors, reception areas, offices, station halls and other relevant locations.
Source reference: p.4, para. 17The CCTV systems must have night vision and audio-video recording capability, with footage preserved for 18 months, or for the maximum commercially available period subject to a minimum of one year.
Source reference: p.4, para. 17The Supreme Court further placed responsibility for the functioning, maintenance, recording, backup and fault rectification of CCTV systems on the Station House Officer/Officer-in-Charge, who must report malfunctioning to the District Level Oversight Committee (DLOC) and ensure that records of arrests and interrogations during the non-functional period are forwarded to it.
Source reference: p.5, paras. 18–19The DLOC must promptly seek repair or replacement through the State Level Oversight Committee (SLOC).
Source reference: p.5, para. 19; p.6, paras. 22–23Reasoning
The Court found that the CCTV footage available in the present case had enabled effective judicial intervention, including seizure of the recordings, constitution of the SIT and confirmation of the allegations against the accused persons.
Source reference: p.2, paras. 2–4Conversely, the absence of footage in another police-station assault case demonstrated the risk of CCTV systems being non-functional precisely when their evidentiary value was greatest.
Source reference: p.3, paras. 12–14Applying the mandatory directions in Paramvir Singh Saini, the Court held that installation alone was insufficient; the State had to ensure continuous functioning, proper maintenance, audio-video recording, preservation and prompt restoration of defective equipment.
Source reference: p.6, paras. 21–24It therefore considered it necessary to expressly fix responsibility upon the Officer-in-Charge and to require reporting to the DLOC, with immediate remedial action through the SLOC.
Source reference: p.6, paras. 21–24Holding
The Court directed the respondents to implement the directions in Paramvir Singh Saini “in letter and spirit” by installing and maintaining CCTV systems in all police stations, ensuring recording and preservation of footage, and making the Officer-in-Charge responsible for their functioning, maintenance, data backup and fault rectification.
Where CCTV cameras are non-functional, the Officer-in-Charge must inform the DLOC of all arrests and interrogations conducted during that period and forward the relevant record without fail.
Source reference: p.6, para. 22The DLOC must immediately seek repair or replacement through the SLOC.
Source reference: p.6, para. 23After reiterating its earlier orders and issuing these directions, the High Court disposed of the writ petition.
Source reference: p.7, para. 25Original Court PDF
Smt. Ratna RoyvsThe State of Tripura and Others
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
