Supreme Court judge Justice Vikram Nath has raised a significant alarm over the state of India’s undertrial prisoners, asserting that the constitutional principle of presuming every accused person innocent until proven guilty has become increasingly hollow for the vast majority of individuals awaiting trial. Speaking at a symposium titled “Between Custody and Constitution: Field Lessons in Delivering Fair Trial Rights,” organised by the Square Circle Clinic, Justice Nath described a criminal justice landscape in which systemic deficiencies have rendered lakhs of undertrial prisoners effectively guilty by circumstance, even before their cases are heard.

According to data compiled by the undertrial review committees created pursuant to a 2015 Supreme Court directive, India currently houses 530,333 prisoners, of whom undertrials account for a staggering 74 per cent. For Justice Nath, this statistical reality exposes a deep contradiction between constitutional guarantees and lived experience. Although the country’s legal framework enshrines the principle of innocence until guilt is proven, he argued that this doctrine has been reduced to an abstraction for those trapped in prolonged pre-trial detention. Many undertrials remain incarcerated not because the law mandates custodial detention, but because the justice system is crippled by delays, resource shortages, and procedural inequities.

Justice Nath pointed to the recurring problem of undertrials spending more time behind bars than the maximum sentence prescribed for the offences they are accused of. He emphasised that such cases constitute an extraordinary breach of both legality and morality, as individuals are effectively subjected to punishment without conviction. He added that a large proportion of these undertrials face charges for bailable offences but remain in custody only because they cannot afford bail or secure sureties. According to him, poverty, marginalisation, and limited legal literacy magnify the injustice, leaving individuals entirely dependent on a system that too often fails to safeguard their rights.

Despite the statutory guarantee of free legal aid under Article 39A of the Constitution, Justice Nath noted that only 7.91 per cent of undertrial prisoners have been able to avail themselves of this entitlement. Many are simply unaware that such assistance exists. Others harbour distrust toward state-appointed defence lawyers, having encountered mechanical, inconsistent, or ineffective representation in the past. The result, he said, is that countless individuals wait in custody not because the law requires continued detention, but because every link in the chain of justice—from the first point of contact with the police to the conclusion of trial—contains structural deficiencies that leave them stranded.

Justice Nath recalled historic judicial interventions that sought to address these failures, most notably the Hussainara Khatoon case of 1979. That landmark judgment exposed the plight of undertrial prisoners languishing for years without trial and led to the release of more than 40,000 inmates. While he acknowledged the transformative impact of such landmark decisions, he cautioned that judicial pronouncements alone cannot rebuild the public’s trust in the justice delivery system. Real change, he said, depends on the everyday conduct and moral commitment of those who serve at every level of the legal and penal framework. When legal aid becomes meaningful, he argued, justice itself becomes visible, and democratic legitimacy is strengthened.

Justice Nath’s remarks come shortly after a bench headed by him issued notices to the Union government, the Attorney General, and the Solicitor General on whether prisoners wrongfully incarcerated for years should receive compensation after acquittal. The question reflects a growing judicial willingness to confront the consequences of systemic detention failures. In observations made on October 27, the bench signalled that the deprivation of liberty cannot be remedied solely through release and that compensation may be necessary to restore some measure of justice.

The symposium also highlighted research conducted by the Square Circle Clinic, whose work in providing legal aid within prisons has helped secure the release of nearly 1,700 inmates since 2019. The Clinic’s report indicates that the existing legal aid architecture functions in fragmented components, lacking the cohesion necessary to support an accused person from arrest through trial. Justice Nath argued that a continuous and accountable chain of representation must be established, transforming legal aid from a mere procedural formality into a constitutional and ethical responsibility embedded in Article 21’s guarantee of life and personal liberty.

He stressed that an effective legal aid system must consider the diverse vulnerabilities of those caught in the criminal process. Women undertrials often face unique forms of marginalisation stemming from economic dependency, social stigma, and caregiving responsibilities. Transgender prisoners encounter heightened risks of harassment, isolation, and violence. Individuals with mental health concerns are frequently detained without appropriate assessment or treatment, compounding both legal and medical harm. Justice Nath urged the development of differentiated protections and targeted support mechanisms to address these layered vulnerabilities.

Another key reform proposed by Justice Nath is the creation of comprehensive national and state-level longitudinal databases that systematically track undertrial detention patterns. He argued that credible, publicly accessible data—disaggregated by caste, gender, economic background, and geography—is essential to understand the structural roots of prolonged detention and to develop informed, evidence-based policy interventions. Without such transparency, he said, reform efforts will remain piecemeal and reactive.

Throughout his address, Justice Nath returned to a central theme: that the true measure of India’s legal system lies not in doctrinal sophistication but in its treatment of the most vulnerable individuals. Quoting Justice H.R. Khanna, he said that if mistakes must occur, they should err on the side of liberty and dignity. For every undertrial who remains incarcerated longer than the law permits, and for every individual denied effective legal assistance, the justice system is reminded of its unfinished obligations. Justice Nath concluded by asserting that the nation cannot claim constitutional fidelity if its poorest and least empowered citizens experience the criminal justice system not as a shield against state overreach but as a source of prolonged suffering.

His remarks reflect a broader and urgent call for introspection. As India continues to grapple with prison overcrowding, judicial delays, and uneven access to representation, the plight of the undertrial population stands as a stark indictment of systemic shortcomings. Addressing these issues demands coordinated institutional action, sustained investment in legal aid, and a justice framework grounded in empathy and constitutional discipline. Only then can the presumption of innocence regain its rightful place as a lived principle rather than an aspirational ideal.