The ‘burden’ of proof: As chargesheets surge in volume and data, accused seek access to computers | Mumbai News
In 2006, some of the accused in the Mumbai serial train blasts case had to approach the court for permission to keep their over 10,000-page chargesheet in their barracks; the overcrowded Arthur Road Jail barrack barely had space for its prisoners.
Twenty years later, the jail still remains crowded, chargesheets have only got longer, and the struggle for space has gone digital. Undertrials across jails are seeking access to computers or laptops to read the electronic evidence against them. From accused in the now-concluded Malegaon 2008 blast case to those booked in the Elgaar Parishad case of 2017-18, several accused have been given permission to use computers, with curbs.
While jail authorities oppose such pleas, citing lack of adequate staff to monitor usage and apprehensions of misuse, courts have been receptive on the grounds that the accused need to access e-data against them. In the terror scare case involving the Ambani residence Antilia, for example, the NIA submitted in court that it had collected 1,000 terabytes of e-data — equivalent to roughly 10 billion pages of text — including about 39,000 clips of CCTV footage, apart from emails and call data dumps. One of the accused, the dismissed cop, Sachin Waze, sought access to a laptop to go through the same. In jail since 2021, he told the court that he was ready to pay for electricity and Internet charges.
Jail authorities opposed the plea arguing that if Waze was given access, others too would make similar demands, which would be “dangerous”. Granting Waze’s request, the court said in a May 2024 order: “Admittedly, the data of e-evidence is huge. To go through it, the help of a device like a computer or laptop is necessary.” As regards Internet access, the court said the prison need not provide the same. Consequently, Waze was allowed to use a laptop between 11 am and 4 pm daily, under the supervision of jail authorities.
Elgaar Parishad accused Surendra Gadling and Arun Ferreira, who are themselves lawyers, moved court for the use of computers in Taloja Jail, citing the evidence submitted by the NIA against them on a hard disk. While jail authorities opposed the pleas saying there was no provision for this in the prison manual, the court permitted them to use a computer for an hour twice a week, along with necessary software. Similarly, in 2011, Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit, acquitted in the Malegaon 2008 blast case, was given permission to use a laptop in jail.
In 2008, an orthopaedic surgeon called Dr L Prakash, who was serving time in Puzhal Central Jail in Chennai for alleged cyber porn, invoked habeas corpus while seeking access to a laptop in jail for him and all others who applied for it. Prakash said that while the prison had about a dozen devices in its computer lab for training, he wanted a personal computer. The Madras HC looked into precedents on inmate rights and considered if the use of computers was a fundamental right falling under Article 19. It held Prakash could not be given a personal laptop but directed the jail to allow him access to a computer with supervision.
In 2020, a court in Kochi provided alleged Maoist operative Roopesh access to 45 minutes of Internet per week, to access official websites of SC and other courts, and legal search websites as he was a law graduate and wanted to represent himself.
Story continues below this ad
Wahid Shaikh, among those accused in the Mumbai train blasts, but later acquitted, and who now fights for the rights of prisoners, says having access to evidence can materially impact a case. “Having access to the chargesheet in our case helped us understand it well, and we could point out the fabrication done by the investigators,” he said, adding that this has become even more important now.
One reason for this is the replacement of the IPC with BNSS, under which investigators are required to video-record search and seizure processes — thus increasing the component of e-evidence. At the same time, it’s only a small portion of prisoners who are digitally literate. The Prison Statistics of India, 2024, states that 9,064 people across India benefited from computer courses in jails, including 608 in Maharashtra. According to a prison official, if the demand by inmates to access computers rose, “it will be difficult to monitor”. “With evidence gone technical, it may come to be that others start filing pleas too.”
