A Division Bench comprising Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V and Justice K. V. Jayakumar issued the directions.

The Court examined the evaluation undertaken by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) of the e-Prisons portal.

According to the material placed before the Court, the portal showed 341 inmates had been granted bail but had not been released within seven days. Moreover, court orders had been uploaded in only 60 cases.

The portal also reflected 113 inmates whose bail applications had been rejected, but court orders were available in the system in only 70 cases.

The Bench observed that the substantial discrepancy between the cases reflected on the portal and the corresponding court orders required immediate examination, noting that availability of the orders was essential for monitoring prisoners' status and taking consequential action.

The Court directed KeLSA to prepare and share with the NIC and the High Court IT Directorate, a list of Prisoner IDs for which the corresponding court orders had not been uploaded. The authorities were directed to ascertain whether the orders had been uploaded in the District Court Management System or whether the problem was due to a technical failure in transmission or synchronisation.

A report identifying the nature and cause of the discrepancy has been sought on the next posting date.

• Integration Of High Court Case Management System With e-prison Application

The Court also dealt with the proposed integration of the High Court Case Management System (HC CMS) with the iCOPS/e-Prisons application.

The Bench was informed that the required APIs had been received and development work was in progress. The Court directed the iCOPS technical team and the IT Directorate to ensure that the integration was made fully functional within an outer limit of four weeks.

The Court further directed the NIC and the High Court IT Directorate to expedite integration of the CMS with the e-Prisons Legal Aid Portal. The objective, it said, was to ensure that information already available with one authority did not have to be separately entered or obtained by another authority.

• Mapping Of Prisoners

The Bench also addressed problems concerning the mapping of prisoner records, historical data and classification of judicial orders.

It directed authorities to ensure that prisoner records were mapped to the prison where the concerned inmate was actually lodged rather than against the Jail Headquarters Code.

• API Synchronisation

The Court noted that the issue concerning the non-availability of released-prisoner data had been resolved by incorporating details of released prisoners into the existing API, which would help preserve historical information and prevent prisoner status from being incorrectly overwritten during subsequent synchronisation.

It also directed that classification and API mapping of court orders across the District Case Management System, High Court CMS and e-Prisons portal remain consistent so that judicial orders could be correctly identified and transmitted without loss or distortion of information.

“We find that historical data relating to the accused, along with the corresponding Accused IDs, have been received from the NIC. It is stated that, in consultation with the NIC, the issue has been resolved by incorporating the details of released prisoners into the existing API. This would enable the system to retain the relevant historical information and prevent the status of prisoners from being incorrectly overwritten during subsequent synchronisation.” Court noted.

• Separate Modules To Monitor Inmates

The Court found a suggestion made by almost all the Jail Superintendent for creation of a separate module to identify and monitor inmates who remain in custody because of non-payment of fine amounts as reasonable.

The existing e-Prisons system does not provide a separate facility to identify such prisoners, making it difficult to ascertain their number and monitor their status.

It was further stated that court orders relating to inmates who are physically outside the prison premises, such as inmates who have been admitted to hospitals, produced before courts or taken out under custody escort are presently not received through the system.

“Since such inmates continue to be reflected in the active jail entry records, it would be beneficial if the court orders relating to them are also made available through the system. This would ensure that the status reflected in the system corresponds more accurately with the actual status of the inmate and would facilitate proper monitoring by the concerned authorities.” Court noted.

The Bench directed the NIC and the IT Directorate to incorporate the suggested facility.

• Additional Prison Staff

The Bench also considered the request of the Director General of Prisons for five additional posts in Central Prisons and at least two additional posts in other prisons to facilitate effective data updation and related work.

The State submitted that creation of posts involved a detailed procedure and financial commitments and sought time to obtain instructions.

The Court, however, observed that the additional personnel were essential for effective implementation of the directions of the Supreme Court and expected the State to take a considered and expeditious decision.

The order also records complaints about the performance of the e-Prisons software. Prison authorities reported significant delays while uploading inmates' personal details and visitor information. Report generation was also stated to become difficult or impossible when the system became unresponsive.

The Court was further informed that technical complaints raised by prison authorities were not being resolved promptly and that responses from the NIC were frequently delayed.

The Bench expected the NIC to examine these problems on priority, improve the performance and responsiveness of the e-Prisons system, and ensure that technical complaints were addressed within a reasonable time.

“We therefore expect the NIC to examine these issues on priority and take effective steps to improve the performance and responsiveness of the e-Prisons system, besides ensuring that technical complaints raised by the prison authorities are attended to and resolved within a reasonable time.” Court observed.

The Court was also informed of delays in recording the admission of inmates because of non-updation of data by police authorities through the Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS).

The Bench directed the State Police Chief to issue necessary instructions to ensure prompt updation of the required data and avoid delays in transmission through the ICJS platform.

The Court additionally directed that the e-Prisons system be modified to enable prison authorities to identify and monitor convicts who had not preferred an appeal against their conviction, observing that such information would assist legal-aid authorities in identifying cases where an appeal may require consideration.

The matter has been posted on 30 September for further consideration.

Case Title: Suo Motu v State of Kerala

Case No: WP(Crl.) 867/ 2024

Counsel for Respondents: Leo Lukose, O.M. Shalina (DSGI), Suvin R. Menon (Sr. Panel Counsel), P. Narayanan (Spl. GP to DGP), Sajju.S 9Sr. GP), S. Krishna