Appendix H — Program Atlas

Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).

Read this chapter in the interactive reader, or download the full 601-page manifesto (PDF).

---

The People’s Model

Manifesto v2026

Volume III — Implementation Handbook

Appendix H — Program Atlas

Justice sector — sheets H.091–H.108 + H.222, H.229 (v1.0)

Each sheet to the 8-section template + 4-point QA bar (defined inline in Vol III App H Education, the format-reference sector).

Problem

Karnataka complainants often face delays, intimidation, or refusals at FIR registration. The dark waiting between filing and action is itself an injustice.

Program design

• FIR registration on the spine with mandatory acknowledgement.
• Complainant visibility into case status (Vol I Sec. 3.3 escalation ladder).
• Refusal to register flagged and reviewable.
• Anti-retaliation safeguards bundled.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Police

Backup: Karnataka State Police Complaints Authority

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹80-130 cr / year (platform + training)

Source: State Budget Home; KSP modernisation funds.

Payment trigger: Per-FIR registration + status-update log.

KPIs

• • Median FIR registration time from complaint — baseline: Variable; F: ≤2 h; B: ≤1 h; C: ≤30 min.
• • Complainant-visible status updates per case — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Real-time; C: Continuous + appeal pathway.
• • Refusal-to-register complaints resolved — baseline: (new); F: ≥70% within SLA; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Officer-side refusal patterns. Safeguard: Pattern audit (App C RF-X-04); accountability via Vol III Ch 20 Anti-Interference Log.
• • Risk: Retaliation against complainants. Safeguard: Whistleblower protection extended to complainants; Grievance Justice Authority remedy.
• • Risk: Privacy breach in case data. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review; consent-protected access.

Dependencies

• • Vol I Ch 6; Vol II Ch 12 Sec. 12.3.
• • App H sheets H.095 (Police Accountability), H.099 (Police Behavioural Standards), H.107 (RTI).

Problem

Karnataka’s district forensic capacity is uneven. Investigation rests on confession in too many cases; evidence-based prosecution is undermined.

Program design

• District forensic labs upgraded (DNA, digital, document, ballistics).
• State Cyber-Forensic facility expanded.
• Trained forensic officer cadre.
• Sample-result SLA published per test class.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Forensic Sciences Laboratory + KSP

Backup: Centre for Cyber-Forensic Sciences (Bengaluru)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹250-380 cr / year

Source: State Budget; central police-modernisation share; NCRB convergence.

Payment trigger: Per-lab commissioning + test-completion data.

KPIs

• • Districts with operational basic forensic capability — baseline: Partial; F: ≥50% (region hub model); B: All 31 (or hub coverage); C: Universal at district level.
• • Median sample-to-result time — baseline: Slow; F: ≤30 days; B: ≤14 days; C: ≤7 days.
• • Evidence-led conviction-rate (adjusted) — baseline: Variable; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: At/above peer-state benchmark.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Lab-result manipulation. Safeguard: Independent peer review on sample; rotation of analysts; vendor blacklist.
• • Risk: Vendor capture on equipment. Safeguard: Open bidder-floor; tech-portability; published per-test unit costs.
• • Risk: Backlog compounding. Safeguard: Capacity-load monitoring; surge contracting with audited vendors.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.091, H.098, H.101 (Cybercrime).

Problem

Karnataka’s legal-aid is statutory but operationally weak. The marginal accused often goes to court without effective defence; outcomes track to wealth, not innocence.

Program design

• Strengthened Public Defender service with cadre framework.
• Service-level commitment per case class (consultation, brief preparation, hearing representation).
• Independent of prosecution (separation of duties).
• Quality-of-defence sample audit.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Legal Services Authority (KSLSA)

Backup: Department of Law & Parliamentary Affairs

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹180-280 cr / year

Source: State Budget; NALSA convergence.

Payment trigger: Per-case defender assignment + SLA evidence.

KPIs

• • Eligible accused with assigned defender within SLA — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
• • Defender caseload per attorney (cap) — baseline: (new); F: Cap published; B: Adherence ≥90%; C: Sustainable workload.
• • Quality-of-defence sample audit pass rate — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: ≥80% pass; C: ≥90% pass.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Defender cadre vacancy. Safeguard: Cadre framework (App F pattern); recruitment timeline published.
• • Risk: Defender-prosecutor collusion. Safeguard: Separation rules; conflict-of-interest register; sample audit.
• • Risk: Quality-audit suppression. Safeguard: Independent peer review; KSLSA reporting line.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.094, H.096, H.107.

Problem

Karnataka courts are clogged with civil matters that could resolve through mediation. Court time is consumed by issues that need conversation, not adjudication.

Program design

• Mediation Centres at every district court.
• Trained mediator panels (rotational).
• Pre-litigation mediation incentivised under the Mediation Act.
• Settlement-enforcement mechanism.

Owning agency

Lead: High Court of Karnataka (Mediation Centre) + KSLSA

Backup: Karnataka Mediation Council

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹80-130 cr / year

Source: State Budget; Centre share via 13th Finance Commission grants.

Payment trigger: Per-case referral + settlement evidence.

KPIs

• • Cases referred to mediation (eligible) — baseline: Partial; F: ≥40%; B: ≥70%; C: Default for eligible classes.
• • Mediation settlement rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥40%; B: ≥60%; C: ≥75%.
• • Average court-time saved per settled case — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material savings; C: Sustained court-time freed.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Mediation captured by stronger party. Safeguard: Legal-aid for weaker party (sheet H.093); recorded process; appeal.
• • Risk: Mediator capture by litigant networks. Safeguard: Rotational empanelment; conflict-of-interest register.
• • Risk: Settlement-non-enforcement. Safeguard: Enforceability under Mediation Act 2023; published enforcement actions.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.071 (Land Disputes), H.098, H.105 (Lok Adalat).

Problem

Complaints against Karnataka police are often handled internally; outcomes are rarely visible. The Police Complaints Authority requires operational teeth.

Program design

• State and District Police Complaints Authorities with statutory powers.
• Independent investigation function.
• Published decisions and remedies.
• Cross-link with Lokayukta on misconduct cases.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Police Complaints Authority

Backup: Department of Home Affairs

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹60-100 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Per-complaint disposition + remedy publication.

KPIs

• • Cases disposed within statutory SLA — baseline: Patchy; F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95%.
• • Independent investigation rate — baseline: (new); F: ≥50% high-severity; B: ≥80%; C: Universal high-severity.
• • Public-trust index (survey-based) in police — baseline: Low in segments; F: Baselined; B: Rising; C: At/above peer-state benchmark.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Capture by police-side actors. Safeguard: Statutory independence; council composition rules; Lokayukta cross-check.
• • Risk: Retaliation against complainants. Safeguard: Witness protection (sheet H.100); whistleblower protection.
• • Risk: Public-trust opacity from confidential cases. Safeguard: Aggregated public reporting; pattern-level transparency without individual disclosure.

Dependencies

• • Supreme Court Prakash Singh judgement; Karnataka Police Act.
• • App H sheets H.091, H.099, H.106.

Problem

Karnataka jails carry a disproportionate share of undertrials — people not convicted but paying the cost of court delay. The harm is concentrated on the poor.

Program design

• Regular undertrial-review camps at district level.
• Bail-acceleration drives for eligible-but-unrepresented accused.
• Section 436A / BNSS provisions automatically triggered on the spine.
• Plea-bargain framework applied where appropriate.

Owning agency

Lead: High Court Karnataka + KSLSA + Prisons Department

Backup: Department of Law

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year (operational)

Source: State Budget; NALSA convergence.

Payment trigger: Per-camp review + bail-disposition data.

KPIs

• • Undertrial share of prison population — baseline: High; F: -20%; B: -40%; C: -60%.
• • Eligible accused with bail-decision within target time — baseline: Variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: ≥98%.
• • Re-arrest rate within 6 months (released cohort) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Bail conditions ignoring poverty. Safeguard: Affordability-aware bail conditions; surety alternatives.
• • Risk: Pre-charge over-extension. Safeguard: Automatic Section-436A triggers; KSLSA monitoring.
• • Risk: Re-arrest cycle without support. Safeguard: Reintegration support (sheet H.104); Vulnerability Case File link.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.093, H.104, H.103.

Problem

Proceeds of corruption and serious crime in Karnataka are rarely recovered fully. Conviction without recovery is incomplete deterrence.

Program design

• Specialised Asset Recovery Unit cross-cutting departments.
• Beneficial-ownership investigations (linked to KSR registry).
• Recovery proceeds ring-fenced for justice-system capacity.
• Transparent disposition of recovered assets.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka Lokayukta + Karnataka Anti-Corruption Bureau

Backup: Department of Home + ED liaison

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹80-140 cr / year

Source: State Budget; partial cost recovery from proceeds.

Payment trigger: Per-case recovery action + disposition evidence.

KPIs

• • Asset recovery in convicted corruption cases (share of declared) — baseline: Low; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: At/above national benchmark.
• • Beneficial-ownership investigations completed — baseline: (new); F: Pilot scale; B: Material throughput; C: Sustained capability.
• • Recovered-asset disposition transparency rate — baseline: (new); F: 100% published; B: 100% with audit; C: Continuous.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Cross-jurisdictional friction. Safeguard: MoU with ED, IT, and other states; cooperation protocols.
• • Risk: Asset undervaluation at disposal. Safeguard: Independent valuation; transparent auction; published reserve price.
• • Risk: Recovery-fund capture for non-justice purposes. Safeguard: Statutory ring-fence; CAG audit.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.106, H.107.

Problem

Karnataka court case-flow is inconsistent across districts and case-types. Predictability of timing is the main casualty.

Program design

• High-Court-issued case-flow management standards per case category.
• Quarterly published case-flow data per court.
• Backlog-reduction plan per district court.
• Procedural simplification where High Court permits.

Owning agency

Lead: High Court of Karnataka

Backup: Karnataka State Judicial Academy

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹100-160 cr / year (capacity + IT)

Source: State Budget; Centre share via Judicial Infrastructure scheme.

Payment trigger: Per-court quarterly data + standard-revision cycle.

KPIs

• • Median case-disposal time (by category) — baseline: Long; F: Backlog stabilised; B: -30%; C: -50%.
• • Cases pending >5 years — baseline: Material; F: Baselined; B: -40%; C: -75%.
• • Case-flow data publication rate per court — baseline: Partial; F: All district courts; B: All courts; C: Continuous + civic-tech reuse.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Apparent disposal via quality compromise. Safeguard: Quality-of-judgement sample audit (within judicial independence).
• • Risk: Court-side resistance to standards. Safeguard: High-Court-led; consultative design; published evaluation.
• • Risk: Vendor capture on court IT. Safeguard: Open standards; tech-portability; rotation.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.094, H.108.

Problem

Karnataka police training is uneven on behavioural standards — interrogation ethics, communication, gender sensitivity, mental-health awareness, community relations.

Program design

• Continuous training cycle with behavioural-standards module.
• Periodic re-certification.
• Community-relations metrics in performance appraisal.
• Trainer cadre separate from inspection cadre.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Police Training Academy

Backup: Department of Home Affairs

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹150-220 cr / year

Source: State Budget; central police-training share.

Payment trigger: Per-officer training event + behavioural-standards assessment.

KPIs

• • Officers with current behavioural-standards certification — baseline: Variable; F: ≥80%; B: ≥95%; C: 100%.
• • Community-relations metric in appraisal — baseline: Limited; F: Pilot adoption; B: Statewide; C: Embedded with measurable outcomes.
• • Misconduct-complaint rate (per officer per year) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Training-provider capture. Safeguard: Open empanelment; rotation; published trainer-performance.
• • Risk: Box-ticking certification. Safeguard: Practice-based assessment; sample observation; misconduct correlation.
• • Risk: Cadre resistance. Safeguard: Time-bound rollout; senior-officer participation; published rationale.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.091, H.095, H.099, H.100.

Problem

Karnataka witnesses in serious-crime cases face intimidation that distorts justice. A statutory witness-protection regime exists; operational application is weak.

Program design

• Three-tier protection (identity, relocation, security cover) per Supreme Court scheme.
• Confidential routing of vulnerable witnesses.
• Court-side accommodation (video, screen) where appropriate.
• Independent review of protection denials.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Witness Protection Cell + KSP

Backup: High Court (procedural accommodations)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹50-90 cr / year

Source: State Budget; Centre share.

Payment trigger: Per-protected-witness case + outcome evidence.

KPIs

• • Witnesses receiving protection (per case class) — baseline: Low; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Statutory entitlement realised.
• • Median assessment-to-protection-decision time — baseline: (new); F: ≤72 h; B: ≤24 h; C: ≤8 h.
• • Witness-attrition rate in serious cases — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Confidentiality breach. Safeguard: Strict access controls; criminal liability for breach; independent review.
• • Risk: Inadequate funding. Safeguard: Statutory budget allocation; CAG audit.
• • Risk: Programme abuse for collateral purposes. Safeguard: Independent review of admission decisions; appeal mechanism.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.091, H.095, H.102.

Problem

Karnataka’s cybercrime caseload grows faster than investigation capacity. Crypto-fraud, phishing, online harassment, and child-safety cases pile up.

Program design

• Specialised cybercrime cells at district + state level.
• Trained cyber-investigator cadre.
• Live cooperation channels with platforms.
• Victim-support pathway.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Police (Cyber Crime wing)

Backup: Centre for Cyber-Forensic Sciences

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹150-220 cr / year

Source: State Budget; Centre share.

Payment trigger: Per-case enrolment + investigation-stage evidence.

KPIs

• • Districts with operational cybercrime unit — baseline: Partial; F: All 31; B: All 31 + capacity scaled; C: Continuous capability refresh.
• • Median investigation completion time (per case class) — baseline: Long; F: Baselined; B: Material reduction; C: At/below national benchmark.
• • Victim-grievance resolution within SLA — baseline: Variable; F: ≥70%; B: ≥90%; C: ≥95% with appeal.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Cadre churn to private sector. Safeguard: Competitive compensation; career-path framework.
• • Risk: Platform non-cooperation. Safeguard: Statutory framework; published cooperation data; escalation pathway.
• • Risk: Misuse against legitimate dissent. Safeguard: Independent review of high-profile cases; Citizen Data Trust oversight.

Dependencies

• • Vol II Ch 15; App H sheets H.092, H.150.

Problem

Survivors of sexual violence, domestic violence, and acid attacks in Karnataka often encounter fragmented services — police, hospital, court, social support — at the moment they have least bandwidth.

Program design

• One-stop centre per district (Sakhi-aligned).
• Integrated case-management on the spine (consent-protected).
• Trained female officer + counsellor + legal-aid at point of first contact.
• Compensation auto-eligibility on the spine.

Owning agency

Lead: Department of WCD + KSP + Department of Health

Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Women

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹130-200 cr / year

Source: State Budget; Nirbhaya Fund + Sakhi convergence.

Payment trigger: Per-survivor case opening + service-bundle activation.

KPIs

• • Districts with operational One-Stop Centre — baseline: Partial; F: All 31; B: All 31 with quality; C: Continuous capacity-refresh.
• • Compensation disbursement within SLA — baseline: Slow; F: ≤90 days; B: ≤45 days; C: ≤21 days.
• • Survivor-satisfaction (post-service) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained quality.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Re-traumatisation in fragmented intake. Safeguard: Single-window protocol; trained first-responder.
• • Risk: Confidentiality breach. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review; criminal liability for breach.
• • Risk: Compensation delays. Safeguard: Auto-eligibility; Open Ledger publication of disbursement times.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.170, H.025, H.091.

Problem

Karnataka juveniles in conflict with law often face criminal-track processing inappropriate for age. Diversion and rehabilitation pathways are uneven.

Program design

• Juvenile Justice Boards strengthened per JJ Act.
• Diversion options (counselling, community service, education-link) prioritised.
• Observation Homes and Special Homes with care standards.
• Cross-link with school dropout prevention (sheet H.016).

Owning agency

Lead: Department of Women & Child Development

Backup: Karnataka State Commission for Protection of Child Rights

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹80-130 cr / year

Source: State Budget; Mission Vatsalya convergence.

Payment trigger: Per-case JJB disposition + post-disposition follow-up.

KPIs

• • JJBs functional per JJ Act standards — baseline: Variable; F: All districts; B: All districts with quality; C: Continuous + audit.
• • Diversion rate (vs custodial) — baseline: (new); F: ≥50% eligible cases; B: ≥75%; C: Default for eligible.
• • Re-offence rate within 12 months (post-disposition) — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: Sustained low.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Observation Homes substandard care. Safeguard: Independent inspection; care-standards audit; child-rights commission oversight.
• • Risk: Adultification pressure (pushing to adult track). Safeguard: Statutory test under JJ Act; child-rights commission review.
• • Risk: Tracking-system privacy risk. Safeguard: Citizen Data Trust review; closed-record principle.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.016, H.025, H.144.

Problem

Karnataka prisons are overcrowded; rehabilitation and reintegration support is patchy. Re-offence rates remain higher than peer-state targets.

Program design

• Prison-population management via undertrial review (sheet H.096) and bail acceleration.
• In-prison education + skill training + mental-health support.
• Reintegration support with Vulnerability Case File link.
• Independent prison-monitoring panel.

Owning agency

Lead: Prisons Department

Backup: KSLSA + Department of Health (mental health)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹250-380 cr / year

Source: State Budget; Centre share.

Payment trigger: Per-prison annual reform-plan + reintegration evidence.

KPIs

• • Overcrowding ratio (occupancy / capacity) — baseline: High; F: Baselined per prison; B: -25%; C: Within capacity sustainably.
• • Education/skill participation rate — baseline: Variable; F: ≥50% eligible; B: ≥80%; C: ≥95%.
• • Re-offence rate within 24 months of release — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material decline; C: At/below peer-state benchmark.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Independent monitoring chilled. Safeguard: Statutory monitoring panel; published findings; whistleblower protection.
• • Risk: Reintegration support fading post-release. Safeguard: Vulnerability Case File extension; auto-eligibility for support.
• • Risk: Health-care neglect in prisons. Safeguard: Sheet H.019 PHC equivalence in prisons; KSPCR oversight.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.025, H.096, H.166.

Problem

Karnataka Lok Adalats clear large numbers of cases when held, but coverage is uneven and Permanent Lok Adalats are under-utilised.

Program design

• Calendar of Lok Adalats per district published in advance.
• Permanent Lok Adalat scaling for utility/insurance/petty-banking.
• Citizen-facing dashboard of decisions.
• Convergence with mediation (sheet H.094).

Owning agency

Lead: KSLSA

Backup: High Court of Karnataka

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹40-70 cr / year

Source: State Budget; NALSA convergence.

Payment trigger: Per-event clearance data + Permanent Lok Adalat caseload.

KPIs

• • Cases cleared annually via Lok Adalat — baseline: Sizeable; F: Baselined per district; B: Material rise + quality audit; C: Sustained throughput.
• • Permanent Lok Adalat caseload coverage — baseline: Limited; F: Pilot expansion; B: Statewide; C: Embedded as default for eligible classes.
• • Citizen satisfaction with Lok Adalat outcome — baseline: (new); F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained quality.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Settlement pressure compromising justice. Safeguard: Quality-audit; appeal pathway preserved.
• • Risk: Awareness gap. Safeguard: Civic literacy modules (sheet H.188).
• • Risk: Capture by repeat-litigant institutions. Safeguard: Anti-cartel detection; rotation of presiding officers.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.094, H.098, H.107.

Problem

Karnataka’s anti-corruption capacity exists in the Lokayukta and ACB but enforcement is uneven; convictions are rare and slow.

Program design

• Lokayukta + ACB capacity strengthened (cadre + forensics + financial-investigation).
• Public-facing case-status tracker.
• Recovery linkage (sheet H.097).
• Cross-departmental cooperation protocols.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka Lokayukta + Karnataka Anti-Corruption Bureau

Backup: Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹120-180 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Per-case investigation evidence + prosecution outcome.

KPIs

• • Median investigation-to-prosecution time — baseline: Slow; F: Baselined; B: Material reduction; C: At peer-state benchmark.
• • Conviction rate in prosecuted cases — baseline: Low; F: Baselined; B: Material rise (with evidence quality); C: Sustained.
• • Asset recovery rate (sheet H.097 linked) — baseline: Low; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: At/above national benchmark.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Political interference. Safeguard: Statutory independence; Vol III Ch 19 Anti-Interference Log; published interference attempts.
• • Risk: Witness intimidation in high-profile cases. Safeguard: Witness protection (sheet H.100); whistleblower regime.
• • Risk: Case-pendency compounding. Safeguard: Sheet H.098 case-flow standards; specialised anti-corruption courts.

Dependencies

• • Vol III Ch 19; App H sheets H.097, H.092.

Problem

Karnataka’s RTI ecosystem suffers from delayed responses, evasive answers, and weak penalty enforcement on PIOs. The Karnataka State Information Commission is under-resourced.

Program design

• KIC strengthening — cadre, capacity, technology.
• Proactive disclosure default (sheet H.181) reducing RTI volume.
• Penalty enforcement on PIO non-compliance.
• Whistleblower protection bundled.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka State Information Commission (KIC)

Backup: Department of Personnel & Administrative Reforms

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹40-70 cr / year

Source: State Budget; statutory body funding.

Payment trigger: Per-RTI disposition + penalty action evidence.

KPIs

• • Median RTI disposal time (KIC) — baseline: Slow; F: ≤90 days; B: ≤45 days; C: ≤30 days.
• • Penalty enforcement on non-compliant PIOs — baseline: Low; F: Baselined; B: Material rise; C: Sustained credible enforcement.
• • RTI applications on already-published items (decline trajectory) — baseline: High share; F: Falling trajectory; B: Material decline; C: Minimal — disclosure pre-empts.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: PIO non-cooperation. Safeguard: Penalty enforcement; published non-compliance data.
• • Risk: KIC under-resourced. Safeguard: Statutory budget; CAG audit; published vacancy data.
• • Risk: Whistleblower retaliation. Safeguard: Statutory protection; criminal liability for retaliation.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.181 (Public Information Charter), H.193.

Problem

Karnataka justice data — case-flow, pendency, conviction rates, disposition times — is uneven in publication. Trust through visibility is foregone.

Program design

• Court-level public dashboards aligned with eCourts framework.
• Police case-flow data published aggregate.
• Prison data on overcrowding + reform.
• Independent verification.

Owning agency

Lead: High Court Karnataka + KSP + Prisons Department

Backup: KIC (oversight)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹30-60 cr / year

Source: State Budget; convergence with Open Ledger publication.

Payment trigger: Per-month dashboard refresh + civic-tech reuse.

KPIs

• • Courts publishing aggregate case-flow data — baseline: Partial; F: All district courts; B: All courts; C: Continuous + civic-tech use.
• • Police aggregate data publication coverage — baseline: Partial; F: Baselined; B: All categories above threshold; C: Continuous.
• • Prison data publication rate — baseline: (new); F: All prisons quarterly; B: Monthly; C: Continuous + audit.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Data revealing privacy-sensitive patterns. Safeguard: Aggregation rules; Citizen Data Trust certification.
• • Risk: Selective publication. Safeguard: Public Information Charter compliance; KIC oversight.
• • Risk: Civic-tech misuse of data. Safeguard: Usage tracking; clear terms of use.

Dependencies

• • App H sheets H.181, H.183, H.215.

H.222 — Electronic Evidence Vault — Justice Dept custody for court-admitted digital evidence

Problem

India’s digital-evidence chain of custody is weak. Police-produced CCTV, body-cam, and digital records remain in the producing agency’s possession even after court admission, creating opportunities for tampering, retroactive editing, selective disclosure, and convenient loss.

Program design

• Centralised Electronic Evidence Vault operated by Karnataka Justice Department, structurally separated from any investigating agency.
• Custody-transfer trigger: the moment a court formally accepts digital evidence, the producing agency loses custody and retains only metadata + vault pointer.
• Access requires fresh court order; Right-to-Self-Footage citizen requests handled per Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.8.
• Retention per court rules (final appeal + statutory archival); periodic audit verifies no silent deletion.
• Every access logged on Justice Dept Open Ledger with requesting party identified.
• Civil-service-tenure-protected staffing prevents external pressure on vault operators.

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka Justice Dept (statutory custody)

Backup: Citizen Data Trust ombudsperson (joint complaint jurisdiction for breaches)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹200–350 cr / year (vault build + storage + custodial staffing + audit)

Source: State Budget Justice head; legislatively appropriated under new Karnataka Electronic Evidence Vault Act

Payment trigger: Per-evidence-item custody-transfer log; quarterly external audit publication on Open Ledger

KPIs

• • Court-admitted evidence in vault custody (vs producing agency) — baseline: 0%; F: 100% within 90 days of court admission; B: 100% within 30 days; C: 100% within 7 days.
• • Vault access requests logged on Open Ledger — baseline: (new); F: 100% logged; B: live publication; C: 100% with requesting-party + purpose disclosed.
• • External audit findings — baseline: (new); F: published annually with zero unresolved discrepancies; B: published quarterly; C: zero discrepancies for 3 consecutive years.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Vault staff pressured by producing agency. Safeguard: civil-service-tenure protection per Karnataka Electronic Evidence Vault Act; rotation; conflict-of-interest register.
• • Risk: Silent deletion ahead of statutory retention. Safeguard: cryptographic chain-of-custody log; quarterly external audit; ombudsperson access to integrity reports.
• • Risk: Vault becomes a bottleneck delaying justice. Safeguard: published SLA for access-request fulfilment; ombudsperson escalation on missed SLAs.

Dependencies

• • Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.8 (100% CCTV); Vol II Ch 12 (Electronic Evidence Vault); Vol I Ch 6 (Citizen Data Trust).
• • Vol III App I (Karnataka Electronic Evidence Vault Act, new statute).

H.229 — AI-monitored custody + community-service compliance framework

Problem

AI surveillance of citizens serving sentences is not currently regulated in India. Without an explicit statutory framework, the infrastructure rolled out under the People’s Model (Karnataka Environmental Crime Act + Strict Traffic Enforcement Amendment) would lack civil-liberties rails — exposed to scope creep, retention abuse, and constitutional challenge.

Program design

• Karnataka Custody and Community-Service Surveillance Act (Vol III App I) provides statutory backing for AI monitoring of citizens serving custodial or community-service sentences.
• Scope strictly limited to compliance verification — confirming time served, work performed. No facial recognition, no behavioural profiling, no predictive policing.
• CCTV in lockup cells + body-cam + on-site CCTV for community service.
• Right-to-Self-Footage for the surveilled person — request + receive their own footage within 30 days, redacted of others.
• Right to non-monitored visit channel (counsel + family meetings) on published schedule.
• Citizen Data Trust ombudsperson + Karnataka CCTV Authority joint complaint jurisdiction.
• Retention: footage retained for sentence duration + one statutory appeal period; thereafter irrecoverably deleted (verified by quarterly external audit).

Owning agency

Lead: Karnataka Justice Department (vault custody) + Karnataka CCTV Authority (operational oversight)

Backup: Citizen Data Trust ombudsperson (joint complaint jurisdiction) + Grievance Justice Authority (appeal pathway for AI-flagged compliance breaches)

Funding model

Annual cost band: ₹350–600 cr / year statewide (custody surveillance build + AI compute + retention infrastructure + ombudsperson oversight)

Source: State Budget Justice + Home heads; new line item legislatively appropriated under the Surveillance Act

Payment trigger: Per-sentence surveillance log on Open Ledger (anonymised aggregate) + access-request publication + annual external audit

KPIs

• • Surveilled persons exercising Right-to-Self-Footage — baseline: (new); F: ≥95% resolved within 30 days; B: median ≤14 days; C: median ≤7 days.
• • AI false-positive rate on compliance breach flags — baseline: (new); F: published quarterly; B: ≤10%; C: ≤3%.
• • Retention compliance (footage deleted on schedule) — baseline: (new); F: 100% audit-verified; B: 100% with quarterly publication; C: 100% sustained 3 consecutive years.

Standard risk controls

• • Risk: Scope creep beyond compliance verification. Safeguard: Act-level prohibitions on facial recognition + behavioural profiling + predictive policing; new categories require Citizen Data Trust + CCTV Authority approval published on AI-Use Register (Vol I Ch 6).
• • Risk: Footage misuse against surveilled person’s interests. Safeguard: Right-to-Self-Footage; ombudsperson access on complaint; Justice Department vault custody upon court admission.
• • Risk: Solitary-confinement-adjacent over-surveillance during ’no contact’ sentences. Safeguard: Sunil Batra v Delhi Administration jurisprudence respected; non-monitored visit channels mandatory; sentence-design caps on contact restrictions.

Dependencies

• • Vol II Ch 12 Sec. 12.6.1 (Electronic Evidence Vault) + Sec. 12.6.2 (AI-monitored custody framework canonical).
• • Vol II Ch 9 Sec. 9.6.7 (Strict Traffic Enforcement Framework using AI custody surveillance); Sec. 9.6.11 (Public Dustbin Network); Vol II Ch 11 Sec. 11.6.1 (Env Crime Act using same framework).
• • Vol III App I (Karnataka Custody and Community-Service Surveillance Act + new HIGH-risk rows I.4.6 + I.4.7); Vol I Ch 6 (Citizen Data Trust + AI-Use Register).

Architecture cross-reference

Architecture cross-reference — sector sheets to architectural sheets

Each program sheet in this sector references the operating architecture defined in Vol I Ch 2 and App H CyberDPI sheets H.230–H.233. Specifically: financial flows from this sector’s programs are published through the Open Ledger (sector-specific data fields per App D) anchored to KSSL (sheet H.230). Time-series outcome data and sector dashboards are published on the Karnataka Open Data Portal (sheet H.233). Personal data flows (where applicable) are governed by the Citizen Consent Ledger (sheet H.232). Security audit and incident response across this sector’s systems falls under the statutory CSOC (sheet H.231).

H.091 — JUSTICE — Transparent FIR + Complainant Tracking

H.092 — JUSTICE — District Forensic Capacity Upgrade

H.093 — JUSTICE — Public Defender Service to Published SLA

H.094 — JUSTICE — Mediation Panels & Fast-Track Civil Resolution

H.095 — JUSTICE — Police Accountability Boards (Statutory)

H.096 — JUSTICE — Undertrial Review & Bail Acceleration

H.097 — JUSTICE — Asset Recovery & Proceeds-of-Crime Unit

H.098 — JUSTICE — Court Case-flow Management Standards

H.099 — JUSTICE — Police Training & Behavioural Standards

H.100 — JUSTICE — Witness Protection Programme

H.101 — JUSTICE — Cybercrime Investigation Capacity

H.102 — JUSTICE — Victims of Violence: Integrated Response

H.103 — JUSTICE — Juvenile Justice & Diversion Programmes

H.104 — JUSTICE — Prison Reform & Rehabilitation

H.105 — JUSTICE — Lok Adalat & Permanent Lok Adalat Scaling

H.106 — JUSTICE — Anti-Corruption Investigation (state)

H.107 — JUSTICE — Right to Information Effectiveness

H.108 — JUSTICE — Justice Data Publication

---

← Appendix H — Program Atlas · Appendix H — Program Atlas →

This is a chapter of The People's Model manifesto for Karnataka — published in full for public review. Every claim may be challenged: write to [email protected].