By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Taking note of the age-old adage “Justice delayed is justice denied,” the Supreme Court has sounded the alarm on a pervasive problem—trial courts across the country failing to frame charges promptly, despite the filing of charge sheets months or even years earlier.
A bench, comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria, raised this concern while hearing an appeal by a petitioner whose bail plea had been rejected by the Patna High Court. The case involved an alleged attempt to steal petrol from a truck, during which the accused was said to have shot the truck owner in the stomach. “The petitioner has been behind bars for more than a year, yet the trial judge has not framed charges, even though the charge sheet was filed long ago,” the bench noted, adding that this issue was “prevalent across the country”.
The apex court observed that trial delays begin at the very first procedural step—the framing of charges. Section 251(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, mandates that in sessions cases, charges must be framed within 60 days of the first hearing. Yet, the reality is starkly different. “We have noticed, time and again, that charges are not being framed even months and years after the filing of the charge sheet. Until this step is completed, the trial cannot commence. We are of the considered opinion that directions need to be issued pan-India,” the bench observed.
The Supreme Court also linked the nationwide backlog of criminal cases to this systemic failure. The bench has sought assistance from Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and has appointed two senior advocates as amici curiae to help frame directions for all courts. This is not the first time the apex court has flagged such delays. In a previous case from Maharashtra, the Court found that charges had not been framed in at least 649 cases, despite charge sheets being filed years earlier.
Such inertia, the Court emphasized, leads to prolonged pre-trial detention, particularly for undertrial prisoners who cannot afford bail. The result: overcrowded prisons, procedural stagnation, and violations of the constitutional right to a speedy trial. The bench’s initiative to issue pan-India guidelines may mark a turning point—ushering in overdue procedural discipline in criminal trials.
POSSIBLE REFORMS HIGHLIGHTED BY THE COURT AND EXPERTS
- Strict adherence to BNSS timelines: Charges must be framed within 60 days of the first hearing.
- Curbing adjournments: Limit delays to exceptional circumstances and penalize frivolous requests.
- Technology-driven case management: AI-based systems can track pendency and flag delays.
- Filling judicial vacancies: Especially in subordinate courts to handle case volume.
- Digital summons and documentation: GPS-based service of summons can expedite processes.
- Ensuring access to defence documents: So accused persons can prepare their cases effectively.
Meanwhile, if a delay results in a “failure of justice”, the accused can approach higher courts for remedies—ranging from bail to even quashing of proceedings—depending on the circumstances.
The Supreme Court’s latest move, therefore, represents not just judicial introspection, but an urgent call to re-engineer India’s trial system for the 21st century.
—The author is an Advocate-on-Record practising in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi