Delhi HC Directs Jail Superintendents to Use Aadhaar QR Scanning Apps to Speed Up Bail Surety Verification
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has issued interim directions requiring all Delhi jail superintendents to verify bail sureties by scanning the Secure QR Code on Aadhaar cards, after data showed delays of up to 56 days in releasing prisoners after bail orders.
A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Mahajan, has passed interim directions in a suo motu writ petition directing all jail superintendents across Delhi to use UIDAI-approved Aadhaar QR scanning applications to verify the credentials of bail sureties. The order, dated 22 May 2026, follows a status report showing that prisoners in Delhi were being held for anywhere between one day and 56 days after bail orders were passed, with the average release time running at five to six days. The court has also directed the Reserve Bank of India to communicate the order to all banks, requiring them to respond promptly to email requests for verification of fixed deposits and other monetary instruments furnished as surety.
How the Suo Motu Petition Arose
The petition traces its origin to a bail order passed on 8 February 2024 in Crl.Rev.P. 1362/2023, in which a Single Judge suspended the sentence of a petitioner and directed release on bail subject to furnishing of a bail bond to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent. A week passed without release. The petitioner then filed an application seeking modification of the bail conditions.
When the application came up on 19 February 2024, the Single Judge took serious note of the delay. The court observed that the object of granting bail and suspending sentences is to release the accused or convict from imprisonment, and that bail orders are transmitted directly to jail authorities through the FASTER cell precisely to avoid routing through the trial court. The Single Judge recorded that “the delay at the instance of the Jail Superintendent in accepting Bail Bonds is not acceptable to the conscience of this Court” and directed the matter be registered as a suo motu petition with notice to the Director General of Prisons and Standing Counsel (Criminal), Government of NCT of Delhi.
The Additional Standing Counsel present that day disputed the characterisation, submitting that the petitioner's case was possibly an aberration and that delay did not normally occur. The Single Judge directed her to file an affidavit. The matter was thereafter referred to an appropriate bench on 7 March 2024 and has been heard on several dates since.
What the Data Revealed
By the time the matter came up before the Division Bench, the Additional Standing Counsel Mr. Amol Sinha placed before the court a status report dated 9 April 2026. The report contained data on 117 under-trials and convicts released on interim bail between 1 February 2026 and 15 February 2026.
The data showed that on average, one to two weeks from the date of the bail order were required by the Jail Superintendent for verifying details. The average time between the bail order and actual release was approximately five to six days. In several cases, release happened within a day. In some cases, the delay stretched to 33 days or even 56 days.
The status report attributed delays to inter-state verification requirements, response time of concerned police stations, and verification of financial instruments furnished by sureties. The report described the current process: upon a bail order directing furnishing of surety to the satisfaction of the Jail Superintendent, the instrument of surety amount (typically a fixed deposit) and identity certification of the proposed surety are obtained. Wireless messages and letters for address verification are forwarded to the concerned police station and the office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police, alongside a letter to the branch manager of the concerned bank. If the bank branch is in Delhi, an official is deputed to visit it physically. The report acknowledged that coordination between jail authorities, local police stations, the DCP's office, and banks contributes to the time consumed.
On the positive side, the report noted that for bank-held fixed deposits, email verification requests to banks were now receiving prompt responses.
UIDAI's Role and the Aadhaar QR Solution
On 20 March 2026, the court had put a specific query to counsel for UIDAI: whether, upon receiving an email from DCP (Legal), Delhi Police, UIDAI could confirm the genuineness of an Aadhaar card of an accused, convict, or surety. UIDAI was asked to assist the court on the next date.
On 22 May 2026, Mr. Sanjeev Yadav, Director (Technical), UIDAI, appeared virtually before the court along with Mr. Himanshu Dabral, Manager (Legal). UIDAI informed the court that it had already given approval to the Ministry of Home Affairs for verifying the Aadhaar cards of prisoners and relatives who come for visits (mulakats), and that this had been implemented in jails across the country.
Mr. Dabral drew the court's attention to mobile applications available on the Google Play Store and App Store that allow verification of an Aadhaar card's credentials by scanning the Secure QR Code printed on it. He demonstrated the process in court. The court noted that through these applications, the demographic details of the person — photograph, name, date of birth, gender, and address — are immediately visible, with only the mobile number and email address redacted.
The court also noted that the Punjab and Haryana High Court, in CRM-M No. 49429/2023 titled Sharanjit Singh @ Suraj v. State of Punjab and connected matters, had by order dated 10 May 2024 directed that after setting up the necessary technical infrastructure and making an appropriate application under Rule 4 of the Aadhaar Authentication for Good Governance (Social Welfare, Innovation, Knowledge) Rules, 2020, services for verification of surety shall be set up in all court premises within Punjab and Haryana. Similar directions had been passed by the Karnataka High Court in W.P. No. 6723/2023 titled UIDAI v. Narayana B. & Ors. vide order dated 3 October 2023.
Interim Directions Issued
The Division Bench stated that while it would consider final directions after receiving UIDAI's full response to its queries, it was expedient to pass interim directions in the meantime. The directions, applicable to all Jail Superintendents across Delhi, are as follows.
For surety verification, Jail Superintendents are directed to scan the Secure QR Code on the surety's Aadhaar card using one of three UIDAI-approved applications: the Aadhaar QR Scanner App, the mAadhaar App, or the Aadhaar App. If further verification is needed beyond what the application provides, it is to be undertaken in an expeditious manner.
For verification of fixed deposits or other monetary instruments issued by banks, Jail Superintendents are to continue using email. Banks and financial institutions are directed to respond promptly. Jail Superintendents are also permitted to communicate the court's order to banks when seeking such verification.
The court directed that today's order be communicated to the Director General (Prisons) through Mr. Sinha for compliance, and that the DG (Prisons) communicate it to all Jail Superintendents in Delhi. The Registry was directed to communicate a copy to the Reserve Bank of India through its counsel Mr. Ramesh Babu for further communication to all banks.
UIDAI has been directed to file a short affidavit setting out how the approval given to the Ministry of Home Affairs is being implemented across all jails in the country, and how the directions of the Punjab and Haryana High Court and the Karnataka High Court are being implemented in the respective trial courts for authentication and verification through Aadhaar.
Order
The Division Bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Amit Mahajan passed the interim directions on 22 May 2026 in W.P.(CRL) 673/2024. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 14 August 2026.