The Bombay High Court at Goa voiced concern over charging points inside Central Jail, Colvale, saying it “shocks the conscience” they existed without prison approval. Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat noted repeated incidents of phones and contraband smuggled inside therein.
GOA: The High Court of Bombay at Goa has expressed serious concern over the installation of mobile charging points inside the Central Jail at Colvale, North Goa, stating that it “shocks the conscience” that such facilities existed without the knowledge or approval of prison authorities.
Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat made these observations while taking note of repeated incidents involving the smuggling of mobile phones and contraband into the jail.
The court directed prison officials to urgently put in place a strong and effective mobile jamming system to curb such unlawful activities.
The matter came before the High Court of Bombay at Goa against theillegal use of mobile phones and the recurring entry of banned items into the Central Jail at Colvale in North Goa. The proceedings arose from a petition concerning Chandu Patil, an undertrial inmate facing charges for the alleged murder of a child.
It was alleged that Patil unlawfully obtained a mobile phone while in custody and used it to place calls to the victim’s family from inside the prison. According to the allegations, these calls contained veiled threats, instilling fear and distress among the family members.
The incident exposed serious shortcomings in prison security and led the court to closely examine how such communication could take place within a high security jail.
Observing the gravity of the situation, the judge remarked,
“Some swift, comprehensive, remedial and stringent measures are required to be taken by the jail authorities to ensure that such incidents do not occur in future.”
In its order, the court sought a detailed response from the jail administration by January 20, 2026. It also highlighted that several jail cells were fitted with mobile charging points, a fact which, according to the court, “further shocks the conscience.”
The order added,
“It is not obscure as to why the charging points are installed there.”
The High Court noted that it had encountered multiple cases in the past where mobile phones, along with drugs, were smuggled into jail premises. Despite earlier recoveries of mobile phones from inmates, the court observed that no effective or lasting preventive measures appeared to have been implemented.
The judge said.
“Merely taking action against one jail inmate who is found possessing the mobile or contraband will not be a definitive solution, but one needs to go to the root of the matter,”
Proceeding on the assumption that no signal jamming system was currently operational in the jail, the court emphasised that authorities must address the issue with the seriousness it deserves. The judge questioned how mobile phones could enter the prison so easily despite routine inspections.
He asked whether such inspections were ,
“superficial and just an eye wash or that a deliberate slack inspection is done at the entry point so that the mobile phones find their way inside the jail premises seamlessly.”
The court noted that such incidents were recurring.
Stressing the need for accountability, The court said,
“Some stringent measures are the need of the hour.” With specific reference to Chandu Patil’s case, the court held that issuing a mere show-cause notice would be inadequate. It directed that call data records (CDRs), CCTV footage, and cell tower location details for the relevant period must be examined. Warning against leniency, the judge observed, “The soft punishment for such activities emboldens the jail inmates…”
The High Court further directed that the Deputy Superintendent or Superintendent of the jail must ensure the immediate installation of robust phone jammers or cellular inspection systems, clarifying that their operation should be strictly confined to jail premises so as not to affect nearby residents.
Additionally, the court ordered the framing of new rules to fix responsibility on personnel found violating inspection protocols at entry points. It mandated the installation of CCTV cameras at inmate inspection counters, if not already present, and required that personal searches be conducted under CCTV surveillance. CCTV coverage was also ordered for Mulaqat (meeting) areas, along with compulsory daily inspections of jail cells.
The court further ruled that daily CCTV footage should be stored on a pendrive and handed over to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, who would be responsible for keeping it in safe custody.