“Smacked, Dragged, and Left Off-Camera for Hours”: Calcutta HC Forms SIT to Probe Alleged Custodial Torture of Student, Says ‘Crime Against Humanity’ Must Be Investigated
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Calcutta Single Bench of Justice Tirthankar Ghosh held that the allegations of custodial torture by police against a student of Midnapore College warranted judicial intervention. The Court directed that a complaint sent to human rights commissions be treated as a formal FIR and ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under a senior police official. The matter has been referred for further investigation by a Human Rights Court, with comprehensive directions on prosecutorial oversight and evidentiary assessment.
The petitioner, a student from the Mathematics Department of Midnapore College, alleged grave misconduct and violence by police officers and affiliated individuals during a student protest. The events unfolded on March 3, 2025, when the petitioner participated in a peaceful demonstration on college premises in support of a strike organized by the Students' Federation of India (SFI), allegedly in response to earlier incidents at Jadavpur University.
According to the writ petition, individuals identified as supporters of the ruling political party forcibly entered the campus and physically assaulted the petitioner. It was further claimed that uniformed police personnel not only witnessed but participated in the assault, forcibly dragging her out of the college premises. The petitioner stated she was then taken to the All Women Police Station, Midnapore, where further physical abuse allegedly occurred under the direction of Officer-in-Charge Sathi Barik.
Medical records from Midnapore Medical College were attached, though the writ petition contended that the attending physician refrained from recording the involvement of police personnel in causing the injuries. The petition also included written communications dated March 3 and March 4, 2025, addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Paschim Midnapore, and the National Human Rights Commission respectively, detailing the events and seeking redress.
Upon receiving the writ petition, the High Court directed Inspector General of Police (IGP) Muralidhar Sharma to review CCTV footage and digital records from the police station. His findings revealed several critical discrepancies, including a 3-hour-52-minute gap during which the petitioner was out of CCTV coverage. The footage that was available showed a lady constable smacking and pushing the petitioner.
In defense, the State contested the allegations, asserting that the complaint was inconsistent and unsupported by credible evidence. It pointed out discrepancies between the petition's claims and attached documents. The State further questioned the authenticity of injuries noted in medical records, arguing that no trauma was evident. The Advocate General maintained that the petitioner’s claims lacked merit and failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required under writ jurisdiction.
Citing precedents such as Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh & Ors. and Bharat Singh & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors., the State contended that the case did not warrant judicial interference under public law remedies, especially when alternative civil remedies were available. The defense stressed procedural safeguards and urged the Court not to rely on unverified allegations.
Nevertheless, the IGP’s report notably contrasted with the Deputy Superintendent of Police’s account, raising concerns about the veracity and completeness of the district police’s submissions.
The Court observed: “The innocence claimed by the police authority before this Court is not acceptable at this stage of initiation of the case.” It further recorded: “The petitioner was out of the CCTV coverage for about 3 hours 52 minutes… which relate to violation of human dignity, custodial torture and custodial violence.”
Regarding the report submitted by IGP Muralidhar Sharma, the Court noted: “A comparison was made between the CCTV log… and prima facie it has been found that the report of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Administration) Paschim Midnapore is a convenient representation… far from revealing the truth.”
The judgment recognized the importance of human dignity under Article 21 of the Constitution: “Custodial torture is a crime against humanity and directly infringes and violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
The Court cited the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, particularly Section 30, to stress that designated Human Rights Courts must facilitate investigation and redress in such cases. It referred to a Supreme Court decision in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh which recognized the necessity of judicial mechanisms to investigate custodial abuse based on CCTV and other digital evidence.
It was further recorded: “So the issue of torture as alleged receives some corroboration in respect of the accusations made by the petitioner in respect of the act and actions of the police authorities.”
The Court directed that the petitioner’s emails to the National and State Human Rights Commissions, as recorded in the writ petition, be treated as the foundational complaint for the registration of a formal FIR under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. This complaint is to be submitted before the Learned Sessions Judge, Paschim Midnapore, who also serves as the designated Human Rights Court for the district.
The Court ordered the constitution of a Special Investigation Team (SIT) under the leadership of Mr. Muralidhar Sharma, Inspector General of Police (Training), Swami Vivekananda State Police Academy. The SIT is tasked with determining whether the alleged offences are cognizable or non-cognizable.
Should the offences be deemed non-cognizable, the SIT is directed to seek necessary permissions from the Sessions Judge.
The Sessions Judge, acting as a magistrate, is to oversee the investigation in a manner akin to proceedings under Section 174 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). The Court stated that the Human Rights Court shall function as a Special Court for the purposes of investigation, trial, and all related procedural matters.
The Inspector General of Police and SIT are to receive logistical support from the Home Secretary, Government of West Bengal. Further directions regarding other issues raised in the writ petition were deferred, with the State instructed to file its affidavit-in-opposition within six weeks, and the petitioner to reply within two weeks thereafter.
The matter is listed for further hearing in June 2025. The Court directed that all parties act on the server copy of the order and that urgent certified copies be issued upon completion of formalities.
Subsequently at the time of passing this order today, an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed on behalf of Respondents No. 5 to 7 The said affidavit is directed to be taken on record. Any affidavit-in-reply, if intended to be filed, shall be done so within a period of two weeks in accordance with the timeline indicated earlier.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Mr. Samim Ahammed, Mr. Arka Maiti, Mr. Arka Ranjan Bhattacharya, Ms. Ambiya Khatoon, Ms. Gulsanwara Pervin, Ms. Saloni Bhattacharya, Mr. Danishuddin Abbasi, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Kishore Datta, Learned Advocate General; Mr. Swapan Banerjee, Learned Additional Government Pleader; Ms. Sumita Shaw, Mr. Soumen Chatterjee, Mr. Diptendu Narayan Banerjee, Advocates.
Case Title : Sucharita Das v. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Case Number: WPA 5447 of 2025
Bench: Justice Tirthankar Ghosh
[Read/Download order]
