'Shocking State Of Affairs' : Supreme Court Expresses Dismay Over Delayed Trials In Maharashtra Courts
The Supreme Court, on October 7, expressed dismay over the shocking state of affairs in the conduct of trials before different Courts in the State of Maharashtra. It was observed that as many as 649 cases are pending across all District Courts in Maharashtra, in which charges are yet to be framed. Some of these cases date back to the year 2006, and the reason for the delay is mostly attributed...
The Supreme Court, on October 7, expressed dismay over the shocking state of affairs in the conduct of trials before different Courts in the State of Maharashtra.
It was observed that as many as 649 cases are pending across all District Courts in Maharashtra, in which charges are yet to be framed. Some of these cases date back to the year 2006, and the reason for the delay is mostly attributed to the non-appearance of either the accused or the counsel.
A bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice NK Singh observed: "The Registrar General of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay has filed an affidavit annexing certain documents which we have perused. To say the least, it is a reflection of a very shocking state of affairs, insofar as the conduct of trials before different Courts in the State of Maharashtra is concerned.
The said affidavit reveals that there are at least 649 cases in which charges are yet to be framed, despite filing of the charge sheets, in certain cases way back in the year 2006, 2013, 2014 and onwards till the year 2020. The reasons assigned for delay are multiple, including, and most significantly, in almost every trial, either non-production of accused or non-appearance of the advocate, be it the prosecutor or the defense."
These observations were made in the context of a petitioner who has been in jail for more than 4 years since April 11, 2021. He had approached the Supreme Court for the status of his trial. Pursuant to this, the Court asked the State of Maharashtra to file a response. However, the reasons why the framing of charges is yet pending before the Court when the challan stood presented in 2021, and the record of any order for further investigation was not mentioned.
This compelled the Court to direct the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court to ascertain from the concerned Trial judge the reasons for such delay. It also asked the Registrar to undertake an examination of similarly situated incarcerated persons, in whose cases framing of charges remains pending despite the presentation of a challan at least four years ago. The Registrar General filed an affidavit which revealed the abysmal state of affairs.
Considering the seriousness of the matter, the Court has now directed the Registrar General of the High Court to:
1. Call for information from each District & Sessions judge, as to what steps have been taken to ensure framing of charges.
These include, but are not limited to, cancelling the bail of such of those accused who are not cooperating and whether the non-cooperation of the accused is a reason considered for granting bail
2. Action taken against the prosecuting agency wherever the trial is delayed.
Furthermore, the Court noted that the High Court had issued a circular on April 19 directing all judges to ensure production of prisoners, either physically or virtually, as per the requirement/stage of the trial.
Another circular dated June 6 directed all judges to ensure production of undertrial prisoners before the Courts on every date, either physically or virtually, and to accept the genuine requests of the jail authorities for virtual production of the prisoner, should they not be able to do so physically.
Considering these circulars, the Court has directed the Registrar General to ascertain whether they have been complied with or not and to what effect and extent.
It has also directed the Registrar General to apprise the steps taken for complying with the directions issued by the Court in Hussain & Anr. vs. Union of India(2017) and Siddhant @ Sidharth Balu Taktode vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr(2024). In Hussain, the Supreme Court directed the Union to undertake measures to prevent delays in criminal trials because of the absence of accused persons.
In Siddhant's case, the Court directed the Registrar General of the Bombay High Court, Secretary, Home, State of Maharashtra and Secretary, Law and Justice, State of Maharashtra to sit together and evolve a mechanism to ensure that the accused are produced before the Trial Judge either physically or virtually on every date and the trial is not permitted to be prolonged on the ground of non-production of the accused persons.
The affidavit is to be filed within 10 days. The Court will hear the matter on October 17.
Case Details: SHUBHAM GANPATI @ GANESH RATHOD v THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA|Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.7964/2025
Appearances: For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Anand Dilip Landge, AOR Mrs. Sangeeta Nenwani, Adv. Ms. Revati Pravin Kharde, Adv. Mr. Shreenivas Patil, Adv. Mr. Rahul Prakash Pathak, Adv.
For Respondent(s) :Mr. Prashant Shrikant Kenjale, AOR Mr. B Dhananjay, Adv. Ms. Damini Vishwakarma, Adv. Ms. Srishty Pandey, Adv. Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR