Back
Supreme Court Orders to Share Inquiry Reports in Case
In a significant development concerning police accountability and custodial violence, the on directed the to produce all relevant entries, CCTV footage from the police station, and the entire record of proceedings from the . The order came in a challenging the High Court's refusal to order a probe into the alleged of Dipankar Gogoi, who died by suicide after repeated detention and torture by police personnel.
The bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice Sanjeev Sachdeva was hearing arguments from Advocate , appearing for the petitioner—Rimly Gogoi Saikia, the sister of the deceased. The Court was informed that the CBI had not yet filed its . The petitioner’s counsel highlighted that three separate inquiries had been conducted—by the , an appointed by the High Court, and the —but none of the reports had been shared with the petitioner.
A Death in Custody: The Case of Dipankar Gogoi
The case stems from events in 2023 when Dipankar Gogoi was allegedly subjected to repeated illegal detention and by personnel of the Titabar and Jorhat Sardar police stations. The torture was reportedly carried out under the direct supervision of the then Superintendent of Police (SP) of Jorhat, in connection with a grenade blast near an Army cantonment at Lichubari in and Gogoi's alleged links with the banned . The petitioner claims that the continuous physical torture and mental humiliation drove Gogoi to commit suicide.
Following a complaint by the petitioner, an FIR was registered against the then SP. However, the petitioner alleged that the state police investigation was marred by . The (SDJM) rejected the first final report filed by the police and directed a by senior police personnel. A second final report was filed on , but the petitioner contends it violated the Magistrate’s earlier order as no senior-ranking officer was appointed. Based on the second report, the Magistrate ordered the registration of a .
High Court’s Controversial Decision
In the meantime, the petitioner approached the seeking transfer of the investigation to the CBI or the constitution of a court-monitored . The High Court appointed an , who orally reported that the had been tampered with by the police. Despite this, the High Court dismissed the petitioner’s plea on , refusing to order a CBI investigation or grant compensation.
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s order was under challenge, and the petitioner had raised serious concerns about the integrity of the investigation. The plea argued,
"It is respectfully submitted that in a case involving serious allegations of
by senior police officers leading to death—where the state investigation is vitiated by bias, conflict of interest, and tampering—the High Court ought to have exercised its
under
to direct a CBI investigation or constitution of an independent SIT, so as to restore public confidence and ensure justice."
Apex Court’s Intervention and Directions
During the hearing, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the lack of transparency. Advocate submitted that despite three inquiries—including one by the High Court itself and another by the amicus—the petitioner had no access to any of the records. The ’s report was also not shared.
The Court immediately ordered that all three inquiry reports be shared with the petitioner’s counsel. The respondent counsel objected to sharing the amicus report, but the Court dismissed the objection and directed that the entire record be produced. The bench observed,
"Secure the entire record on the file of the
. Learned counsel for the State shall also place on record all relevant materials, GD Diaries, along with the CCTV footage by way of pen drive.
to continue."
The Court had earlier issued notice to the and five accused police officers, and allowed the petitioner to implead the CBI as a party. It also stayed proceedings before the pending further orders.
Legal Implications: Balancing Police Accountability and Fair Investigation
This case raises fundamental issues under () and () of the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s intervention underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring that investigations into custodial violence are free from bias and institutional cover-ups. The direction to share inquiry reports and produce CCTV footage is a crucial step toward transparency, especially when the state police are themselves accused of .
Legal experts note that the case could set a precedent for how courts handle allegations of by senior police officers. The refusal of the to order a CBI probe, despite evidence of tampering, has been criticized as a failure to protect the . The Supreme Court’s staying the trial court proceedings also prevents any premature closure of the case.
The Road Ahead
The CBI has yet to file its counter, and the must now produce the GD diaries, CCTV footage, and all inquiry reports. The next hearing will likely examine whether the state police investigation was indeed compromised and whether the CBI or an independent SIT should take over. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for police accountability in Assam and across India.
For the legal community, this case serves as a reminder of the judiciary’s willingness to intervene when state mechanisms fail. The Supreme Court’s insistence on sharing all records with the petitioner also reinforces the principle of and the right of victims’ families to access information in cases of custodial violence.
As the matter progresses, all eyes will be on the CBI’s response and the contents of the inquiry reports. The allegations of tampering with the , if proven, could lead to serious consequences for the police officers involved. For now, the Supreme Court has ensured that the investigation remains under judicial scrutiny, offering a glimmer of hope for justice in a case marked by tragedy and institutional failure.
