The Supreme Court of India on Wednesday expressed strong concern over the persistent and systemic delays in framing charges in criminal cases across the country, describing such delays as a major factor behind the stagnation of the criminal justice system. Observing that these hold-ups often lead to prolonged incarceration of undertrials and a denial of timely justice, the apex court indicated that it is considering the formulation of nationwide guidelines to ensure that trial courts adhere to the statutory timelines mandated under the new Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).

A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria noted that despite clear statutory provisions under Section 251(b) of the BNSS—which requires charges in cases exclusively triable by a sessions court to be framed within 60 days from the first hearing—trial courts across India are frequently failing to comply. “We have noticed, time and again, that charges are not being framed even months and years after the charge sheet is filed. Until charges are framed, the trial does not commence. This is one of the primary reasons for delay,” the bench observed in its order.

Highlighting the pervasiveness of this issue, the court stated that it appeared to be a “nationwide problem” and that the time had come to consider issuing “pan-India directions” to standardise procedures and enforce accountability. The bench noted that despite the completion of investigation and submission of charge sheets, cases often languish without charges being framed, effectively halting the judicial process.

To assist the court in crafting comprehensive guidelines, the bench appointed senior advocate Sidharth Luthra as amicus curiae and sought the assistance of Attorney General R. Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and senior advocate S. Nagamuthu. The counsel representing the state of Bihar was also directed to aid the court.

The observations came during the hearing of a bail plea filed by Aman Kumar, an accused who has been in custody since August 2024 in connection with charges of robbery and attempted murder under Sections 309(5), 109(1), 103 and 105 of the BNSS, along with Section 27 of the Arms Act. Despite the charge sheet being filed on September 30, 2024, the charges had not been framed even after more than a year, leaving the accused in prolonged judicial custody.

Aman Kumar’s bail plea had previously been rejected by the trial court in October 2024 and later by the Patna High Court in March 2025, prompting his appeal to the Supreme Court. His counsel argued that the delay in framing charges had effectively converted his pre-trial detention into punishment, violating his constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21.

During the hearing, Justice Aravind Kumar questioned why such delays had become routine, comparing the situation in criminal cases to civil matters where issues often remain unframed for years. “Why take years and years to frame charges? In civil cases, issues are not framed; in criminal cases, charges are not framed. We want to know what the difficulties are—or we will issue directions for all courts across the country. We propose to do it,” the bench remarked sharply.

The bench was also informed of similar concerns raised recently in Maharashtra, where a bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol had identified 649 cases in which charges had not been framed despite the completion of investigations. While some state authorities are reportedly gathering data from district courts to address the problem, the Supreme Court bench indicated that it would not wait indefinitely for administrative inputs before taking action.

“We will not wait for information from district courts. We will issue directions pan-India. Trials cannot be delayed. The moment the charge sheet is filed, the charge needs to be framed. Some accused may be discharged—that is fine—but the process cannot stall. Pan-India guidelines will have to be framed in this regard,” the bench asserted.

The judges further emphasised that such delays undermine not only the rights of the accused but also the faith of victims and the public in the justice delivery system. The bench noted that while several procedural reforms have been introduced through the BNSS and related legislative changes, their success depends entirely on effective implementation at the level of trial courts, where the majority of criminal litigation is decided.

The court’s proposed move could lead to one of the most significant administrative reforms in the Indian criminal justice system in recent years. Legal experts have long pointed to inordinate delays at the pre-trial stage—including the filing of charge sheets, supply of documents, and framing of charges—as key contributors to India’s backlog of over 3.5 crore pending criminal cases. In many instances, undertrials spend years behind bars without their cases moving beyond the preliminary stage.

By considering nationwide judicial directions, the Supreme Court appears poised to enforce strict compliance with statutory timelines, potentially mandating accountability mechanisms for judges and court staff who fail to adhere to them. Such directions could also require state governments and high courts to monitor progress through periodic reviews and data collection.

Legal observers note that similar interventions by the Supreme Court in the past—such as the landmark Hussainara Khatoon series of cases on undertrial prisoners—have resulted in systemic improvements, though implementation has remained inconsistent across states.

Relisting the matter for hearing in two weeks, the bench stated that it would formulate the legal principles necessary for uniform implementation and compliance across jurisdictions. The forthcoming guidelines are expected to lay down specific timelines, procedural obligations, and possibly accountability measures to ensure that trials begin promptly after charge sheets are filed.

As the judiciary seeks to address what it has described as a “structural bottleneck” in criminal justice, the proposed framework could serve as a crucial step toward expediting trials, reducing undertrial incarceration, and restoring faith in India’s overburdened legal system.