The Tripura High Court has held that a magisterial inquiry under Section 196 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, is confined to identifying the apparent cause of death and cannot extend to determining the manner of the incident or the negligence of prison officials.

The Court was hearing a petition filed by the Inspector General of Prisons challenging orders of the Tripura Human Rights Commission concerning the suicide of a convict in prison. The Commission had recommended ₹4 lakh in compensation to the prisoner’s widow and children, disciplinary proceedings against the officials concerned and preventive instructions to avoid similar incidents.

A Division Bench of Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice Biswajit Palit observed: “In Amar Singh v. Balwinder Singh and others, the Supreme Court has held that proceedings under Section 176 of the Cr.P.C (corresponding to section 196 of the BNSS) have a very limited scope i.e., to identify what is the apparent cause of the death. The details as to how the person died, or under what circumstances he died, would be foreign to the ambit and scope of the said proceedings.”

The Bench continued: “Thus Section 176 of Cr.P.C or Section 196 of BNSS do not contemplate an inquiry into the manner in which the incident took place and also do not require that the names of the accused should be mentioned in the Inquest Report. These aspects would not be covered in the inquiry conducted by the Magistrate, as rightly held by the Commission.”

Additional Government Advocate Dipankar Sarma appeared for the Inspector General of Prisons. Senior Counsel Somik Deb, assisted by Advocates Abir Baran and Rijuka Roy Barman, represented the respondents.

Background

The deceased was serving a 12-year sentence in prison when he was found hanging from an exhaust fan in a toilet adjacent to the interview room. Since the death occurred in custody, the Tripura Human Rights Commission took cognizance and sought reports concerning the circumstances, inquest, post-mortem examination, final cause of death and magisterial inquiry.

A Judicial Magistrate conducted an inquiry under Section 196(1A) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and found that the prisoner had died by suicide through hanging. The Magistrate additionally observed that no culpability could be attributed to the prison authorities, staff or inmates.

The Commission conducted its own inquiry and concluded that the prisoner had been regularly assigned to clean the dirty material of a dog maintained inside the prison. It found that no other rigorous-imprisonment convict had been given that work and treated the prisoner’s exclusive deployment for the task as discriminatory.

The Commission also found prima facie negligence by the warder responsible for supervising the prisoner, noting that he remained in the CCTV control room while the prisoner worked beyond camera coverage.

The Commission concluded that constant humiliation, unfair treatment and the prison authorities’ arbitrary conduct had led the prisoner to take his life, violating Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.

It recommended ₹4 lakh in compensation for the prisoner’s widow and children, a departmental inquiry against the warder and other prison staff, and preventive instructions. It also permitted the Government to recover the compensation from the officers or staff found responsible.

The Inspector General sought reconsideration on the strength of the Magistrate’s observation that there had been no negligence or foul play. The Commission rejected the request, holding that the Magistrate’s inquiry was limited to the cause of death and that its own recommendation was binding.

Court’s Observations

Magistrate Could Not Determine Negligence

The Court held that an inquiry under Section 176 of the CrPC, corresponding to Section 196 of the BNSS, determines only the apparent cause of death. It may identify whether the death was suicidal, homicidal or accidental, but cannot investigate the broader manner of the occurrence or assign criminal responsibility.

Applying this limitation, the Court held: “So to the extent the Magistrate in his report in Case No.5995 of 2024 went into the aspect about negligence of jail authorities, he had no jurisdiction.”

The Magistrate’s finding on negligence consequently had no legal validity and could not bind the Commission. His conclusion that the death was caused by suicide remained within the permissible scope of the inquest.

Commission’s Findings Were Independently Supported

The Court noted that the Commission had afforded the Inspector General an opportunity of hearing and had considered the documents submitted by him, the report of its investigation wing and an inquiry conducted by one of its members.

It observed: “The above findings of fact recorded by the Commission cannot be faulted prima facie...”

The Court nevertheless clarified that those findings would not be conclusive in the departmental inquiry, preserving the officials’ opportunity to contest the allegations.

Human Rights Commission’s Recommendation Was Enforceable

Referring to the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Abdul Sathar v. State (2021), the Court held that a recommendation under Section 18 of the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993, is an adjudicatory order that binds the Government or authority concerned and is immediately enforceable, subject to judicial review.

The Full Bench had held: “The recommendation of the Commission made under Section 18 of the Act, is binding on the Government or Authority.”

The Court found that the Commission had followed the statutory procedure and based its recommendations on the material before it. It held that the Commission was within its jurisdiction in recommending compensation and disciplinary action.

Reconsideration Request Was Delayed

The Court noted that the Commission’s report had been communicated to the Inspector General, but reconsideration was not sought within one month. The later request based on the Magistrate’s report was therefore rightly rejected as time-barred.

The Court held: “When the report was communicated on 25.02.2026 by the Commission to the petitioner, within one month thereof, reconsideration should have been sought, but admittedly the same was sought only on 10.07.2026.”

It also rejected the State’s contention that the Commission could not issue its final recommendation before a departmental inquiry. No such inquiry had been commenced despite the custodial death, and the possibility of a future inquiry did not prevent the Commission from recording findings or making recommendations.

Conclusion

The Court dismissed the Inspector General’s petition and upheld the Commission’s orders recommending ₹4 lakh in compensation, disciplinary action against the officials concerned and preventive measures. It imposed no costs.

The Inspector General was directed to implement the Commission’s directions within one month and report compliance to the High Court. The pending applications were also disposed of.

Cause Title: Inspector General of Prisons, Tripura v. Tripura Human Rights Commission and Another (Neutral Citation: 2026:THC:1476-DB)

Appearances

State: Dipankar Sarma, Additional Government Advocate

Respondents: Somik Deb, Senior Counsel, assisted by Abir Baran and Rijuka Roy Barman, Advocates

Click here to read/download Judgment

Tags: