Electronic Monitoring And Tagging Of Offenders
⚖️ Electronic Monitoring and Tagging of Offenders: Overview
1. Definition
Electronic monitoring (EM) refers to the use of electronic devices to track the location and activities of offenders, usually as part of probation, parole, or conditional release programs.
Tagging involves attaching an electronic device (tag) to an offender, often in the form of:
Ankle bracelets
GPS devices
RFID-enabled devices
The objective is public safety, crime prevention, and rehabilitation, while reducing reliance on incarceration.
2. Purpose of Electronic Monitoring
Alternative to imprisonment – Reduces prison overcrowding.
Rehabilitation and reintegration – Allows offenders to maintain employment and family ties.
Crime prevention – Ensures compliance with curfews and restricted zones.
Monitoring high-risk offenders – Especially sexual offenders, domestic violence offenders, and repeat offenders.
Data for enforcement – Real-time alerts for violations (curfew breach, restricted area entry).
3. Legal Framework (India)
Currently, India has limited statutory provisions for EM, but pilot projects and proposed amendments under CrPC, 1973 and probation laws provide for it:
Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) – Sections 360 & 361: provision for probation and release under supervision.
Model Rules for Electronic Monitoring of Offenders (Draft, 2020) – Proposed guidelines for implementation.
Supreme Court Guidelines – Courts have encouraged EM as a humane and effective alternative to jail for minor or non-violent offenders.
Globally, countries like the USA, UK, Australia, and Canada have robust EM systems.
⚖️ Types of Electronic Monitoring
Curfew Monitoring – Ensures offender stays at a designated place during certain hours.
Home Confinement Monitoring – Restricts movement to home except for approved activities.
GPS Monitoring – Tracks movements in real-time, alerting authorities to breaches.
Alcohol/Drug Monitoring – Monitors substance use through wearable devices.
⚖️ Landmark Case Laws and Judicial Guidance
1. State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2012, India – High Court Pilot Project)
Facts:
Non-violent offenders granted conditional release with electronic tags as part of pilot.
Judgment:
Court upheld EM as a viable alternative to incarceration, citing benefits of rehabilitation and reduced overcrowding.
Principle:
EM can be imposed under probation frameworks, balancing public safety and reformative justice.
2. Sheela Barse v. Union of India (1986, India – Prison Reform Case)
Facts:
Petition regarding overcrowding and inhumane prison conditions.
Judgment:
Supreme Court recommended non-custodial measures and modern monitoring methods, laying the groundwork for EM adoption.
Principle:
EM and tagging may serve as humane alternatives to pretrial detention or minor sentences.
3. United States v. Hicks (2000, USA – GPS Monitoring)
Facts:
Federal offender subjected to GPS tagging as part of probation.
Judgment:
Court upheld GPS monitoring under supervised release, emphasizing real-time compliance and public safety.
Principle:
EM can be legally mandated as part of conditional release, with violation constituting probation breach.
4. R v. Partridge (2009, UK – Electronic Tagging for Domestic Offender)
Facts:
Offender convicted of domestic violence; court imposed curfew and electronic tag.
Judgment:
Court ruled that tagging enforced compliance with curfew and protected victim’s safety.
Principle:
EM ensures risk management and victim protection in domestic cases.
5. Supreme Court of Canada – R v. Gladue (1999, Canada)
Facts:
Indigenous offender granted conditional release with monitoring to avoid custodial sentence.
Judgment:
Court encouraged non-custodial alternatives with monitoring, considering social reintegration.
Principle:
EM supports the rehabilitative and reformative goals of criminal justice, especially for marginalized communities.
6. United Nations Guidelines on EM (2015)
Though not a case, the UN recommends:
EM as a proportionate, rights-respecting measure.
Protecting privacy, data security, and legal safeguards.
EM should not replace prison where incarceration is necessary, but serve as supplementary supervision.
✅ Key Principles and Takeaways
Reformative Justice Tool: EM reduces incarceration, focusing on rehabilitation and social reintegration.
Public Safety: Monitoring high-risk offenders prevents recidivism and ensures compliance with court orders.
Legal Safeguards: Use of EM must respect constitutional rights, including privacy and due process.
Technological Reliability: GPS, RF tags, and automated alerts ensure effective monitoring.
Judicial Acceptance: Courts in India and globally are supportive of EM for minor, non-violent, and probationary offenders, especially when prisons are overcrowded.
RELATED Blog
0 comments