Tripura HC CCTV compliance has come under renewed scrutiny after the High Court of Tripura directed the state authorities to implement the Supreme Court’s CCTV guidelines strictly in every police station. The order came in a case involving allegations of assault and mistreatment inside East Agartala Police Station, where CCTV footage became an important part of the judicial proceedings.
High Court sets out strict CCTV rules
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit passed the directions on September 17 while disposing of criminal writ petition W.P.(Crl.) No. 06 of 2026, filed by Ratna Roy. The case concerned allegations involving her son, Saikat Saha, at East Agartala Police Station in April 2026.
The High Court directed the state to follow the Supreme Court’s requirements on the installation, functioning, maintenance and preservation of CCTV systems in police stations. The directions apply across Tripura rather than only to the police station involved in the case.
The court relied on the Supreme Court’s 2020 judgment in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh, which requires CCTV coverage of important areas inside police stations. These include entry and exit points, main gates, lock-ups, corridors, reception areas, station halls, verandas and rooms used by senior police officers.
What Tripura HC CCTV compliance requires
The CCTV systems must provide both audio and video recording and have night-vision capability. The court also reiterated requirements for preserving footage for at least 18 months, or for at least one year where longer storage is not commercially feasible.
The order places direct responsibility on the Officer-in-Charge of each police station. The officer must ensure that cameras function properly, maintain recordings, preserve data and backups, and address technical faults.
If a camera stops working, the Officer-in-Charge must immediately inform the District Level Oversight Committee, or DLOC. The DLOC must then approach the State Level Oversight Committee, or SLOC, for prompt repair or replacement.
The court also directed that when CCTV equipment is not functioning, the Officer-in-Charge must inform the DLOC about arrests and interrogations carried out during the period of malfunction and forward the relevant records. This creates an additional reporting requirement during gaps in CCTV coverage.
Custodial assault case brought CCTV evidence into focus
The directions followed proceedings over the alleged assault of Saikat Saha. According to the petition, Saha was taken to East Agartala Police Station on April 4, 2026, where he was allegedly assaulted and humiliated during the intervening night of April 4 and 5. The allegations were made against two individuals, with the petition also raising concerns about the conduct of police personnel present at the station.
The High Court intervened early in the proceedings to protect the CCTV evidence. On May 6, it directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, West Tripura, Agartala, to take custody of footage from April 4 to April 6 and retain it.
The court subsequently ordered a Special Investigation Team to investigate the allegations. According to the September 17 judgment summary, the SIT’s findings supported the allegations against the two accused persons at a preliminary level. The accused were later charge-sheeted, while police personnel, including the Officer-in-Charge of East Agartala Police Station, faced suspension and departmental proceedings.
Why the CCTV directions matter
The High Court highlighted the evidentiary importance of functioning CCTV systems. In the present case, footage allowed the court to secure recordings and facilitated further investigation. However, the court also noted another police-station assault case in which footage was unavailable because the CCTV system was reportedly non-functional when the incident occurred.
That contrast prompted the court to stress that simply installing cameras is not enough. The systems must remain operational, recordings must be preserved and technical failures must trigger immediate action.
The High Court also noted the Supreme Court’s direction that state Finance Departments should provide adequate funds to implement CCTV requirements in police stations.
The September 17 order therefore shifts attention from CCTV installation alone to accountability for the entire recording system. By assigning specific duties to police station heads and requiring escalation of equipment failures, the court has set a clearer framework for preserving potentially important evidence in cases involving arrests, interrogations and allegations of custodial misconduct.
Vaishnaw Outlines Semicon 2.0 Roadmap as India Steps Up Global Chip Push