In a dramatic turn of events where the Tripura Human Rights Commission (THRC) was chasing an anonymous compliant against Prof. Nachiketa Mittal, former Registrar of NLU Tripura, the division bench of the High Court of Tripura, headed by the Justice MS Ramchandra Rao, Chief Justice with Hon’ble Mr Justice Biswajit Palit has granted stay on entire proceedings and interim order of THRC dated 14th August, 2026 in complaint no 45 of 2026. The stay was granted on 1st September, 2026. 

This casts serious doubts on the credibility of the THRC’s investigation and the interim order passed. It is important to note that THRC is headed by the retired judge of the High Court of Tripura, Justice Arindam Lodh. When the bench headed by the Chief Justice of Tripura cracks down on the orders passed by the retired judge, being bad in law, it raises pandoras box, that what was the motivation of THRC and the Investigation wing to pursue an anonymous complaint and do the orders of THRC really have application of mind of the former judge of the High Court. 

Prof. Mittal had challenged entire proceedings of THRC and a draconian impugned order of THRC dated 14th August, 2026, before the High Court of Tripura, calling it bad in law and not maintainable under the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993 and the Tripura Human Rights Commission Regulations 2022. During the hearing, the Chief Justice questioned the lawful jurisdiction of THRC to entertain the anonymous letter against Prof. (Dr.) Nachiketa Mittal, former Registrar of NLU Tripura.

The High Court in open court told the counsel who was appearing for THRC that there is separate law for separate subject matters. Even if the subject matter of the anonymous complaint has to be investigated, it may fall under POSH law, and THRC has no lawful jurisdiction by virtue of its own regulations. The Chief Justice took cognizance of the fact that THRC’s regulation categorically bars its from investigating anonymous and frivolous complaints. The High Court asked, there is no complainant mentioned in the anonymous letter then how can THRC lawfully take investigation forward and pass adverse order in the name of interim order.

The High Court dismissed the justifications offered by the counsel arguing on behalf of THRC. The Chief Justice reminded the THRC counsel that THRC’ sphere is limited in matters of gross human rights violation like custodial deaths, torture, etc. The division bench was not at all pleased with the THRC’s handling of case complaint no 45 of 2026 which does not bear any name and signature. The Chief Justice also said in open court, the anonymous letter mentions mere allegations, which may or may not be true. But it does not squarely fall under the legal domain of THRC to proceed. While the counsel appearing for THRC cited Section 12 of the Proetction of Human Rights Act, 1993 to show the powers of THRC, the Chief Justice objected and dismissed the argument. Instead, Adv. Shankar Lodh, appearing for the Petitioner, Prof. Nachiketa Mittal, cited regulation 9 of the Tripura Human Rights Commission Regulations 2022, which clearly bars the THRC from taking cognizance of complaints which are “vague or anonymous or pseudonymous or illegible or trivial or frivolous”. 

This is not the first time, THRC has exceeded its jurisdiction. Recently in early August 2026, the Commission stepped into basic police administrative duties by taking up a rash and negligent driving case, alongside a security breach and phone snatching incident at the GB PG Girls Hostel. Days later, THRC issued orders regarding individual Electric Auto Rickshaw operating permits and municipal traffic fines in Agartala, followed by directives to the Champamura Panchayat Secretary over social pension disbursements under a disability scheme. The Commission also intervened in a complaint raised by a Tipra Women Federation delegation, including MLA Swapna Debbarma, regarding the verbal abuse and intimidation of women roadside vegetable vendors in Nandan Nagar. These are only few glaring examples. Such extra territorial stretch of jurisdiction by THRC reflects that the commission is bypassing primary administrative channels to resolve minor civic and law enforcement matters and this may fundamentally weaken the state institutions. Observers contend that treating routine police work, localized pension distribution, power grievances, and municipal permits as human rights interventions creates a dangerous precedent, allowing the political executive to hide behind the THRC to mask systemic governance failures.

In the mater of Prof. Nachiketa Mittal vs THRC, also the bench headed by the Chief Justice of Tripura clearly reminded the counsel appearing for THRC that purpose and boundaries of State Human Rights Commission are well defined and limited in scope. It is thus clear that the retired judge of the High Court, heading THRC, is yet to retire mentally from the High Court and operating THRC like a mini High Court, thereby undermining the powers of the regular courts, and law enforcement agencies by entertaining matters beyond its lawful reach.

Reporting will continue more on the matter of Prof. Nachiketa Mittal vs THRC. As on date on 1st September, 2026, it is quite a win for Prof. Mittal against jurisdictional overreach by THRC.