Efficiency Vs Dignity

Context: Centralised database for the justice system can replicate caste bias, violate privacy.

Background:

• The supreme court’s e-committee, headed by Justice D Y Chandrachud, is tasked with integrating digital technologies in courts to enhance judicial productivity and efficiency.
• It aims to put in place an interoperable digital architecture that facilitates “easy” data-sharing among all pillars of the criminal justice system — the police, prosecutors, prisons and courts.

About The Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS):

• Launched in 2019, it is set to be fully operational and will replace the existing need-based physical exchange of information.
• It will integrate existing centralised data systems such as the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS), e-prisons and e-courts, promising “seamless exchange of live data” among these branches.

Critique of ICJS:

• Privacy concerns: Given the absence of data protection laws, there lies considerable risks of centralised, interoperable and permanent digital databases on the privacy and liberties of individuals.
• Compromised judicial independence: Critics have questioned the implications of the data being housed in the home ministry for judicial independence.
• Helps whitewash the biased and illegal process of data collection: At the level of police stations, through the dual myths of objectivity and neutrality of technology.
  • Police stations have historically maintained registers of “habitual offenders” (HOs), primarily persons who belong to Vimukta Janjatis, criminalised by the British through the Criminal Tribes Act, 1871.
  • Labelling as HO hinges entirely on police suspicion, discretion and conventional knowledge, which are informed by caste prejudices.
  • Names and details of first-time offenders and juveniles (who should be registered under Juvenile Justice Act) are also included in these registers.
  • An interoperable system creates potential for this information to be used to the detriment of accused persons without their knowledge.

Conclusion: Efficiency and digitisation cannot recede the rights and dignities of marginalised individuals who are often the subjects of our criminal justice system.