Supreme Court To Explore Use Of E-Prison Portal To Identify Prisoners Who Continue In Jail Despite Grant Of Bail

The Supreme Court today (November 19) suggested that an e-prison portal can be used for collating data on those who remain inside prisons despite being granted bail because they are unable to furnish surety. 

A bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and AG Masih was hearing a suo moto case (In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail) where it has passed orders to ensure that prisoners who get bail are released without delay. On the last occasion, the Court had passed directions to arrange a demonstration of how the e-prison portal works. 

Through an order dated November 29, 2022, the Court included the issue of the e-prison module, which was subsequently extended across the country. The two aspects of the e-prison model are: first, updating the e-prison portal with data related to Court Cases (across the country) in coordination with the Prison Authorities and second, the preparation of “Draft Information Sharing Protocol” by the National Information Centre (NIC).

The e-prison portal is developed by the NIC, Delhi under the auspices of the Ministry of Home Affairs. E-prison is a prison management portal which so far has connected 1,318 prisons across the country. It aggregates the entire records of inmates from the time they are admitted to their release. The portal intends to record the entire prison cycle of the prisoners.

The bench was hearing the suggestions filed by Advocate Devansh A. Mohta, amicus curiae in this case, pursuant to the demonstration. Mohta pointed out that certain areas of the e-prisons project require "immediate attention" where the Court's direction would be necessary. 

Publication of PTN

He pointed out the publication of PTN[pre-trial number], collation of CNR (case number record) and PID/Jail ID, tracking of cases without CNR by prison authorities, and review of statutory forms in the context of integration. He added that these forms are currently part of the Code of Criminal Procedure and manual of States. 

For the context, the PTN are generated by the Court as a case identifier until charges are framed. After the framing of charges, the CNR is generated for every case.

Mohta pointed out that certain issues regarding PTN were found such as some prison authorities being unable to categorically inform whether PTN details were available to the Courts. In some cases, the PTN number is handwritten.

Therefore, he prayed that the Court direct the Trial Courts to commence publishing PIT and FIR details on custody warrants because that is the first key identifier. This way, PTN and FIR would form a part of all communication between Courts and prisons.

Justice Oka asked if assigning PTN is followed in all States to which Mohta its availability is asymmetric. Mohta explained that as per NIC, thousands of PTNs are being generated in every State. However, when the same was asked from jail authorities in order to collate the date, it was found that the PTNs were not available in many cases. 

He added: "Your Lordship can safely assume, majority of the States are PTN-enabled States."

The Court inquired how the PTN is generated to which Mohta replied that it is generated by Courts in the remand/custody warrant and has to be generated even when the accused is produced for the first time. However, it is not generated during bail application where CNR is generated directly. 

Attaching information sheet with final judgment

Mohta suggested that a "top-down" approach is required to be followed where appropriate directions may be passed to ensure that CNR number, Jail ID and the PID of the accused/convict are collated in all criminal cases filed and pending before the Supreme Court. This may be mentioned in an "information/sheet" for the convenience of all stakeholders. A similar exercise may be followed by the High Courts. 

Whereas for the Trial Courts, they may consider attaching to conviction/final judgment an information sheet comprising identifiers [PTN/CNR/FIR etc]. This will facilitate the collation of key data elements including by Higher Courts. 

Review of forms

Mohta also spoke on the aspects of reviewing the forms related to the production of documents which are utilised for communication between Courts and prisons. He added that the forms should contain key identifiers such as FIR/PTN/CNR-Jail ID/PID etc. 

He said: "These forms are different for different States. Once exercise is taken to review these forms, bear in mind that these information are required by other agencies also."

Mohta added that for now, conviction or warrant forms could be reviewed. 

On this, the Court was interested to know how this facility could be used for bail application including for those who have been granted bail but could not pay the surety. 

Tracking of cases without CNR number

Next, Mohta pointed out that there are old and transferred cases were CNR number is not present. It was found that few States through the respective jail authorities were able to provide the oldest cases with a CNR form. 

He prayed that the jail authorities may be directed to collate all cases which are without CNR number to ensure proper tracking of cases as well as the prisoner. 

Citing an example of Uttar Pradesh, he said: "Before 2016, because after that CNR number is there, are also in five or six digits. These are cases. Now we don't know if the person is in jail or they will not be able to tell us immediately if the case is pending or not. Whatever is the present status. This direction could be restricted to inmates in jail and pending cases."

He added that NIC suggested that if such a list is given by the jail authorities, the NIC can generate CNR number for them. 

Other issues touched upon by Mohta included enhancement/expansion of the database to include non-police cases and deployment of personnel and regular training to operate the e-prisons portal are some of the pressing areas.

He added that we should not be left with cases where the inmate is in jail but the case cannot be tracked. Therefore, broad coverage of cases for which CNR should be assigned. 

At this point, Justice Oka inquired: "Have we considered the issue of people not availing the bail because they cannot furnish surety? Is this addressed in this PIL?"

Senior Advocate Liz Mathew (amicus curiae) responded that twice the issue had come up but no follow-up was made. 

To this, Justice Oka said: "Kindly address us on this. We would like to know if bails are granted and how e-prison portal could be helpful to trace out the cases where bail granted but not availed. Either because they are poor or unable to furnish surety. Please look into it. We will expand it. Because this has some connection with this subject also because the information available on the module can be used to find out cases where people have not availed of bail."

The Court will continue to hear the matter.

Case details: IN RE POLICY STRATEGY FOR GRANT OF BAIL SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021

Appearance: Senior Advocate Liz Mathew (amicus curiae) and Advocate Devansh A. Mohta (Amicus Curiae)