News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 48
Agartala, January 6, 2026 : The Tripura High Court has dismissed a writ appeal filed by former Congress MLA and senior political leader Gopal Chandra Roy, who had sought ₹10 lakh in compensation alleging violation of his fundamental rights during a police search of his residence amid the COVID-19 lockdown in April 2020.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice M.S. Ramachandra Rao and Justice S. Datta Purkayastha upheld the earlier order of a single judge, holding that the dispute involved contested questions of fact that could not be resolved in writ proceedings. The court clarified that the appellant was free to pursue his claim before a competent civil court, which would independently assess the issues of fact and law.
The case arose from a police search conducted on April 5, 2020, at Roy’s Agartala residence in connection with an FIR registered under Sections 469 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. The FIR was lodged by an Additional Public Prosecutor, alleging that Roy had used a forged letterhead bearing the State Emblem of India to lodge a complaint against the then Chief Minister, Biplab Kumar Deb, accusing him of spreading misinformation about COVID-19 cases.
Roy argued that the search, which lasted over three hours during pandemic restrictions, violated his rights to free movement, privacy, life, and personal liberty under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. He claimed that the police action amounted to harassment and unlawful intrusion.
The State, however, maintained that the search was carried out strictly in accordance with law and COVID-19 protocols. Police authorities stated that multiple officers, including female personnel, were present to prevent any law-and-order issues given the appellant’s political stature. During the search, investigators reportedly seized blank letter pads bearing the National Emblem, which the State argued were prohibited for use by former legislators under the State Emblem of India (Regulation of Use) Rules, 2007.
The judgment also noted that the police had sought a search warrant from a Judicial Magistrate on the same day, but the application was later dismissed for not fulfilling the requirements under Sections 91 and 93 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court refrained from commenting on the correctness of that magistrate’s order, observing that any such remarks could prejudice either side in future proceedings.
Agreeing with the single judge, the Division Bench ruled that it would be inappropriate to adjudicate disputed factual claims, including allegations of restriction of movement or coercion, within a writ jurisdiction. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.
The court made it clear that if Roy chooses to approach a civil court for compensation, his case must be decided on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations made by the High Court in the present proceedings.
Case Reference : Gopal Chandra Roy v. State of Tripura & Ors., W.A. No. 159 of 2023 (Tripura HC, decided on 06.01.2026), counsels: for appellant : Purusuttam Roy Barman, Sr. Adv., Samarjit Bhattacharjee and Kawsik Nath; for respondents : S.M. Chakraborti, Adv. Gen., Kohinoor N. Bhattacharyya, G.A., Raju Datta, P.P., and Pinki Chakraborty.
