Implementation of CCTNS 2.0 within four months, Madras High Court directed Tamil Nadu Police Department

Madras High Court. File | Image source: K. Pichumani

The Madras High Court observed that the Tamil Nadu Police Department was lagging behind in utilizing information technology, and therefore, the Madras High Court directed it to ensure that from the stage of receiving the complaint until the stage of providing the judgment, until the stage of providing the judgment, is digitized and updated in a real-time manner.

Justice Jagadish Chandira seriously noted the long-term delay in the implementation of the Crime and Crime Tracking Network and Systems (CCTNS) 2.0 project by the State Police Department and ordered it to be placed within four months, and the department must make a valid reason.

The judge noted that the Supreme Court’s electronic committee has launched the National Interoperable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) platform, which interconnects the CCTNS portal used by the State Police Department, the Court Usage Case Information System (CIS) portal, and E-Proner, E-Proner, E-Forensic and E-Forensic and E-Porposition Portals.

The purpose of the International Criminal Court is to ensure that the High Court and the Trial Court have easy access to the first information report (FIR), case diaries, fee forms, and other documents uploaded in PDF format. The National Criminal Records Agency was asked to implement ICJS with the National Center for Informatics.

Although the system is conceived by the Supreme Court and implemented by the Union Home Ministry, it has been used throughout the country, the system has not been implemented in Tamil Nadu because the existing CCTN portal of the State Police Department is incompatible with the existing CCTN portal of the National ICJS platform.

After being told that compatibility issues could be resolved after implementing CCTNS 2.0, which is still in the pipeline for several years, the judge ordered the new software to be used within four months so that the problems facing citizens can be greatly reduced.

He noted that the court was flooded with a petition seeking instructions to register with the police for FIR or apply for charges. Even after such instructions were issued by the court, the police did not comply with orders within a fixed time frame, forcing the litigants to despise the court petition.

In response, police always seek excuses for not complying with court orders by frequently citing transfers from investigators. In some cases, although the police will submit the charge form on time, the information is not updated on the police station website, keeping the litigant in the dark.

Judge Chandira said that in the digital age attracted by artificial intelligence, the lack of a tendency to keep pace with technology cannot be forgiven, and it is time that the Tamil Nadu Police Department uses technology to maximize the collective interests of the criminal justice system.

These orders are based on the complainant’s temag remorse against police officers in Greater Chennai City, requiring effective action in cases of cheating. The judge directed the High Court to list the request again four months later to determine the status of CCTNS 2.0.