Tripura HC Upholds ₹4 Lakh Commission Recommendation For Widow Of Prisoner Who Died By Suicide After Being Singled Out To Clean Jail Dog’s Room

Dilip Debbarma, a convict serving a 12-year sentence at Kendriya Sansodhanagar, was found hanging in a prison toilet on 23 October 2024.

A Judicial Magistrate’s inquiry under Section 196(1A) of the BNSS concluded that the death was suicide and also stated that no culpability could be attributed to prison authorities.

The Tripura Human Rights Commission, after considering the material before it, found that Debbarma had been assigned alone to clean the waste in the prison dog’s room and that the supervising warder had failed to maintain proper surveillance. It attributed the suicide to discriminatory and humiliating treatment and negligence, recommended compensation of ₹4 lakh to the widow and children, and recommended departmental inquiry.

The Inspector General sought reconsideration on 10 July 2026, relying on the Magistrate’s report. The Commission rejected the request, and the Inspector General challenged the Commission’s orders in this writ petition.

Sections 18 and 29 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, govern the Commission’s recommendations and apply the relevant provisions to State Commissions; Section 18(e) requires the Government to provide comments on the report, including action taken or proposed, within the prescribed period.

Regulations 15 and 16 of the Tripura Human Rights Commission Regulations provide for submission of the Commission’s report to the State Government and further consideration by the Commission of the Government’s response or failure to respond.

An inquiry under Section 176 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 196 of the BNSS, is limited to identifying the apparent cause of death; questions about the manner or circumstances of death and responsibility for it fall outside that inquiry’s scope (Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh, (2003) 2 SCC 518).

The Court also relied on the Full Bench decision in Abdul Sathar v. State, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16611, which held that a Commission’s recommendation under Section 18 is binding and enforceable, subject to judicial review.

The Magistrate’s report could not negate the Commission’s findings on negligence because the Magistrate’s statutory inquiry was confined to the cause of death, not the circumstances giving rise to it or the responsibility of prison staff.

The Commission had considered documents submitted by the petitioner, its own investigation material, and a report by its Member, and had provided the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. That material supported its findings that Debbarma alone was assigned the cleaning work and that the warder failed to supervise him adequately.

The Court therefore found no basis to disturb the Commission’s recommendation on judicial review.

The reconsideration request was also properly rejected: the Commission supplied its order on 25 February 2026, but the petitioner did not seek reconsideration until 10 July 2026.