In a significant move to address longstanding delays in the release of prisoners granted bail, the Supreme Court of India is set to hear a public interest litigation (PIL) seeking the implementation of digital verification processes for bail sureties. The plea highlights how manual verification often leads to prolonged incarceration for undertrial prisoners, even after courts have approved their release, due to bureaucratic hurdles and the inability to promptly furnish or verify sureties.
Background and Context of the Plea:
The petition, filed under Article 32 of the Constitution, argues that the current system of physical verification of sureties—often requiring local addresses, property documents, or personal bonds—results in unnecessary delays, sometimes extending to weeks or months. This disproportionately affects economically disadvantaged prisoners who struggle to arrange sureties quickly. The plea proposes leveraging digital tools, such as Aadhaar-linked e-verification, integrated with the e-Prisons portal and National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG), to streamline the process. Proponents claim this could reduce release times from days to hours, aligning with the constitutional right to speedy justice under Article 21.
The case draws from ongoing concerns raised in the Supreme Court’s suo motu proceedings, such as In Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021), where the court has repeatedly addressed systemic delays in prisoner releases post-bail. In recent hearings, the bench of Justices Abhay S. Oka and A.G. Masih emphasized the need for better integration of the e-Prisons portal—a National Informatics Centre (NIC)-developed platform under the Ministry of Home Affairs—to track bail-granted inmates unable to furnish sureties due to socio-economic barriers. The portal already facilitates real-time data sharing between courts, prisons, and legal services authorities, but lacks robust digital surety verification features.
Historical Supreme Court Interventions on Bail Delays
The Supreme Court has issued several directives over the years to mitigate such issues, laying the groundwork for the current plea:
- 2021: Introduction of FASTER System – In a landmark order, a bench led by then-Chief Justice N.V. Ramana approved the FASTER (Fast and Secured Transmission of Electronic Records) mechanism for electronically transmitting e-authenticated bail orders directly to jails and district courts. This was aimed at eliminating delays caused by physical delivery of orders. The court mandated all states and Union Territories to ensure internet connectivity in prisons and amend rules to recognize e-copies. However, implementation has been uneven, with reports of technical glitches and non-compliance in remote areas.
- 2023: Seven Key Directions for Timely Release – In February 2023, Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Abhay S. Oka issued comprehensive guidelines in the ongoing suo motu case. These include:
- Courts must email soft copies of bail orders to jail superintendents within one day, who must update the e-Prisons software with the bail grant date.
- If release doesn’t occur within seven days, the superintendent must notify the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) secretary, who can deploy para-legal volunteers or jail-visiting advocates to assist.
- Courts may grant temporary bail if prisoners claim they can furnish sureties only after release.
- If bonds aren’t furnished within one month, courts must suo motu review and relax conditions, including waiving local surety requirements for indigent inmates.
- NIC was directed to upgrade e-Prisons for automatic alerts to DLSAs on delays.
- Probation officers or volunteers must assess socio-economic conditions to recommend relaxations.
- Avoid insisting on local sureties where feasible, as this is a major delay factor. These directions were prompted by data showing thousands of undertrials—over 5,380 as of mid-2023—languishing in jails despite bail, often due to surety issues. The court also urged the Centre to grant protected access to the e-Prisons portal for State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs) and DLSAs.
- 2024-2025 Developments – In November 2024, the court revisited e-Prisons integration during a hearing, seeking recommendations to track “bailed but not released” cases, including old untracked files and standardized processes across states. Amicus Curiae Devansh A. Mohta suggested including FIRs and PTNs (Prisoner Transit Numbers) in custody warrants for better tracking. By mid-2025, the court’s half-yearly review noted persistent inconsistencies in bail jurisprudence, with delays in UAPA and economic offense cases. A notable instance involved Aftab (an interfaith marriage case), where release was delayed 28 days post-bail due to technical omissions, leading to a Rs. 5 lakh compensation and a rebuke of prison authorities for “hyper-technical” excuses.
National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB) data underscores the urgency: As of 2023, undertrials comprised over 75% of India’s prison population (around 4.7 crore pending cases), with many detained for bailable offenses due to surety barriers. The 2025 review highlighted that while the court granted bail in high-profile cases (e.g., Delhi riots accused like Umar Khalid), procedural delays under stringent laws like UAPA and NDPS persist, eroding the “bail as rule, jail as exception” principle.
Case Details: Re: Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (SMW(Crl) No. 4/2021)
Lawcutor 