Guwahati: The Supreme Court on Thursday directed the Assam government to place on record the general diary (GD) entries, CCTV footage from the police station and the entire record of the Gauhati High Court in a plea challenging the High Court’s refusal to transfer to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) the probe into the alleged custodial torture of Dipankar Gogoi.

A Bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Sanjeev Sachdeva also directed that reports and records relating to inquiries conducted into the case be shared with the petitioner’s counsel. The court rejected an objection to sharing the report submitted by the amicus curiae appointed by the Gauhati High Court.

“Secure the entire record on the file of the Gauhati High Court. 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. Interim order to continue,” the court ordered.

The court was hearing a plea filed by Gogoi’s sister challenging the Gauhati High Court’s September 19, 2025 order refusing her request for a CBI probe, a court-monitored investigation and compensation.

The Supreme Court had recently issued notice to the Assam government and five police officers named as accused in the case. It had also permitted the petitioner to implead the CBI as a party and stayed proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate for the time being.

During Thursday’s hearing, Advocate Shahrukh Alam, appearing for the petitioner, informed the court that the CBI was yet to file its counter. He submitted that three inquiries into the case had been conducted, including by the High Court, the amicus curiae and the Police Accountability Commission, but the petitioner had not been given access to the records.

The court directed that all three reports be shared with the petitioner’s counsel. The respondents opposed the disclosure of the amicus curiae’s report, but the court rejected the objection and directed that the entire record be made available.

Allegations of custodial torture

According to the petition, Gogoi was allegedly subjected to repeated illegal detention and “third-degree” torture in 2023 by personnel of the Titabar and Jorhat Sadar police stations, allegedly under the supervision and involvement of the then Superintendent of Police.

The alleged torture was linked to a grenade blast near an Army cantonment at Lichubari in December 2023 and Gogoi’s alleged association with the banned United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), the petition stated.

It has been alleged that continued physical torture and mental humiliation led to Gogoi’s death by suicide.

A complaint lodged by the petitioner led to the registration of an FIR against the then SP. The petition alleged that the subsequent State police investigation was affected by bias.

The Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate subsequently rejected the first final report submitted by the police and directed a re-investigation by senior police personnel.

A second final report was filed on April 30, 2025. The petitioner alleged that the report did not comply with the Magistrate’s earlier direction as no senior-ranking police officer had been appointed to conduct the re-investigation. Based on the second report, however, the Magistrate ordered the registration of a complaint case.

Meanwhile, the petitioner had approached the Gauhati High Court seeking transfer of the investigation. The High Court appointed an amicus curiae, who, according to the special leave petition, stated orally that the case diary had been tampered with by the police.

The High Court eventually dismissed the petitioner’s plea seeking transfer of the investigation.

The petitioner has argued before the Supreme Court that the allegations of custodial torture involving senior police officers, coupled with claims of bias, conflict of interest and tampering with records, warranted an independent investigation.

“It is respectfully submitted that in a case involving serious allegations of custodial torture 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 extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to direct a CBI investigation or constitution of an independent SIT, so as to restore public confidence and ensure justice,” the plea stated.