Noting that it could intervene effectively in an alleged assault on a man at the East Agartala Police Station only because CCTV footage was available, the Tripura High Court has directed that the Supreme Court’s CCTV directions for police stations be implemented in letter and spirit and has made the Officer-in-Charge answerable for the cameras.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Agartala: The Tripura High Court has held that the availability of CCTV footage allowed it to intervene effectively in a case of alleged assault and torture of a man at the East Agartala Police Station, and has directed the State to implement, in letter and spirit, the Supreme Court’s directions on CCTV cameras in police stations, disposing of a writ petition filed by the man’s mother [Ratna Roy v. The State of Tripura and Others].
A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit passed the order in W.P.(Crl.) No. 06 of 2026. The allegations against the individuals named in the petition are being dealt with in separate criminal and departmental proceedings, are untested, and the presumption of innocence applies to them.
The case
The petitioner, Ratna Roy, alleged that her son, Saikat Saha, was taken to the East Agartala Police Station on April 4, 2026 by Rabindranath Ghosh, an employee of the Agartala Municipal Corporation, and Joy Debnath, a Special Police Officer, and that he was assaulted and tortured at the station on the nights of April 4 and 5.
On the Court’s direction, the CCTV footage of the police station was seized on May 6, 2026. The Court constituted a Special Investigation Team headed by an Inspector General of Police on May 14, 2026. The team’s report of June 16, 2026 found the allegations against Ghosh and Debnath prima facie confirmed.
Action taken by the State
The Home Department told the Court that officials of the East Agartala Police Station had been issued show-cause notices, suspended and made subject to departmental proceedings. A later affidavit dated August 29, 2026 stated that articles of charge had been framed against the Officer-in-Charge and other policemen and that the proceedings were continuing. As regards Ghosh and Debnath, the judgment records that their services appear to have been terminated subsequently and that a charge sheet has been filed against them.
What the Court said
The Bench noted that it was able to intervene effectively only because footage of the police station was available. It contrasted this with another petition before it, W.P.(Crl.) No. 10/2026, in which the police station CCTV was reported to have been non-functional for several days around the time of an alleged incident. The Court relied on the Supreme Court’s judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh and Others, which requires CCTV coverage in police stations and makes the Station House Officer responsible for the cameras.
The directions
The Bench directed that the Supreme Court’s directions be implemented “in letter and spirit”:
“shall be implemented in letter and spirit by the respondents”
The respondents must not only install CCTV cameras in police stations as directed in Paramvir Singh Saini but also make the Officer-in-Charge responsible for their working, maintenance and recording. Where cameras are not functioning, the Officer-in-Charge must inform the District Level Oversight Committee of arrests and interrogations during that period and forward the records. On a report of malfunction, the Committee must promptly ask the State Level Oversight Committee for repair and purchase of equipment.
“The Officer-in-Charge of P.S. has to be made responsible for the CCTV data maintenance”
The Court then disposed of the writ petition.
Why the order matters
The order shows in concrete terms why working cameras in police stations matter: the footage allowed the High Court to order a Special Investigation Team probe and to see the State act against those allegedly involved. By contrasting it with a case in which the cameras were not working, the Bench underlined that the Supreme Court’s directions are not formalities.
By placing responsibility for the cameras and their data on the Officer-in-Charge, and by setting out a reporting chain to the District and State Level Oversight Committees when cameras fail, the Court has turned a general mandate into a workable accountability structure for Tripura’s police stations. The criminal and departmental proceedings against the individuals concerned remain pending, and no view is expressed here on their merits.
Case Title: Ratna Roy v. The State of Tripura and Others [W.P.(Crl.) No. 06 of 2026]
Bench: Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit, Tripura High Court
Date of Order: September 17, 2026
Appearances: Senior Advocate P. Roy Barman and Advocate Samarjit Bhattacharjee for the petitioner; Advocate General Saktimoy Chakraborti, Public Prosecutor Raju Datta, and Advocates Pinki Chakraborty and Priyanka Chakraborty for the respondents