Facts
The Delhi High Court initiated this suo motu petition following an order dated February 19, 2024, by a Single Judge who noted a systemic delay of one to two weeks by Jail Superintendents in accepting bail bonds after the court had granted bail or suspended a sentence
Source reference: para. 2, 5In the precursor case (Crl.Rev.P. 1362/2023), a petitioner remained incarcerated for over a week post-bail due to administrative delays in bond satisfaction
Source reference: para. 4Data subsequently submitted by the State revealed that while some prisoners were released in a day, others faced delays of up to 56 days due to physical verification requirements of sureties and financial instruments
Source reference: para. 8Issues
1. Whether the administrative delay by Jail Superintendents in accepting bail bonds and verifying sureties violates the prisoner's right to timely release following a judicial order
Source reference: para. 5, 112. Whether modern digital tools, specifically UIDAI (Aadhaar) authentication, can be mandated to expedite the verification process of sureties
Source reference: para. 11, 12, 18Law Applied
The Court emphasized the fundamental objective of bail and suspension of sentences, which is the immediate release of the accused or convict
Source reference: para. 5The Court relied upon the Aadhaar Authentication for Good Governance (Social Welfare, Innovation, Knowledge) Rules, 2020 (Rule 4) regarding the implementation of services for surety verification
Source reference: para. 12It also took judicial notice of precedents from the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Sharanjit Singh @ Suraj v. State of Punjab and the Karnataka High Court in UIDAI v. Narayana B. & Ors., which directed the setting up of technical infrastructure for Aadhaar-based verification in court premises
Source reference: para. 12, 14Reasoning
The Court observed that the primary cause of delay was the "physical verification" process, where police personnel were dispatched to addresses or banks
Source reference: para. 10The Court reasoned that since UIDAI already provides secure QR codes containing demographic details (photograph, name, DOB, address), physical verification is often redundant
Source reference: para. 15, 17By integrating mobile applications like mAadhaar or Aadhaar QR Scanner, Jail Superintendents can verify credentials instantly
Source reference: para. 18For financial instruments (FDs), the Court noted that electronic communication (email) with banks is already prompt and should be formalized to replace physical visits
Source reference: para. 10, 18The Court moved to harmonize jail administration with existing digital infrastructure to ensure that judicial orders of release are not frustrated by bureaucratic inertia
Source reference: para. 11, 18Holding
The Court issued interim directions to eliminate delays in the release of prisoners. It held that all Jail Superintendents in Delhi must henceforth verify sureties by scanning the Secure QR Code on Aadhaar cards using UIDAI-approved apps (Aadhaar QR scanner, mAadhaar, or Aadhaar App)
If further verification is required, it must be done expeditiously. Verification of FDs or monetary instruments must be conducted via email, and banks are directed to respond promptly. The Court further directed the UIDAI to file an affidavit on the national implementation of Aadhaar verification in jails and ordered the Reserve Bank of India to communicate these directions to all banks
Source reference: para. 18(ii), 19, 21Original Court PDF
Court On Its Own MotionvsDirector General Of Prisons, Govt Of Nct Of Delhi
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in