SC mulls pan-India guidelines over inordinate delays in framing of charges in criminal cases
New Delhi (PTI): Expressing its annoyance over the delay in the completion of trials in criminal cases due to non-framing of charges for years even after chargesheets are filed, the Supreme Court on Wednesday said it needs to lay down pan-India guidelines to address the problem which leads to huge pendency of cases in the judiciary.
A bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria, which sought the assistance of the Attorney General R Venkataramani and Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, said even after the chargesheets are filed, the trial courts are not framing the charges for three to four years.
"We have noticed, time and again, the charges are not being framed even months and years after the filing of the chargesheet. This is one of the primary reasons for the trial getting delayed.
"Unless and until the charges are framed in a criminal case, the trial cannot commence. As such, this situation seems to be prevalent in most of the courts and we are of the considered opinion that certain directions need to be issued pan-India in this regard," the top court said.
It appointed senior advocate Siddharth Luthra as amicus curiae to assist the court in the matter.
"We also permit the petitioner's counsel to furnish a copy of the petitioner and the present order to the Attorney General as we propose to issue directions if required for all courts across the country," the bench said as it listed the matter after two weeks.
The bench, which was hearing a bail plea of an accused in a criminal case from Bihar, was informed by his counsel that charges have not been framed for the past two years despite the filing of a chargesheet.
The top court noted that under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), in cases exclusively triable by a court of sessions, a charge must be framed within 60 days of the first hearing.
Justice Kumar said that the delay in completion of trials in criminal cases is due to non-framing of charges and in civil matters it is due to non-framing of issues by the trial court.
"Why take years and years to frame charges? In civil cases, non-framing of the issues and in criminal cases, non-framing of charges.
"We want to know what the difficulties are and we will issue directions for all courts across the country. We propose to do it," the bench said at the outset.
The top court also sought the assistance of former high court judge and senior advocate S Nagamuthu.
The counsel appearing for the Bihar government said that there are substantial delays between the filing of a chargesheet and the framing of charges.
Similarly, another counsel pointed out that the same situation exists even in Maharashtra. Recently, another bench of the apex court has also expressed concern over 600 criminal cases where charges have not been framed and remarked that "it was a shocking state of arrears".
The top court had sought details of such cases from district courts in Maharashtra.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Deep societal faultlines persist despite 75 years of independence: Justice Ujjal Bhuyan
Judge cites denial of home to Muslim girl, opposition to Dalit women cooking mid-day meals
Hyderabad, February 23, 2026: Supreme Court judge Justice Ujjal Bhuyan has said that despite repeated affirmations of constitutional morality by courts, deep societal faultlines rooted in caste and religious discrimination continue to shape everyday realities in India.
Speaking at a seminar on “Constitutional Morality and the Role of District Judiciary” organised by the Telangana Judges Association and the Telangana State Judicial Academy in Hyderabad, Justice Bhuyan reflected on the gap between constitutional ideals and social practices.
He cited a recent instance involving his daughter’s friend, a PhD scholar at a private university in Noida, who was denied accommodation in South Delhi after her surname revealed her Muslim identity. According to Justice Bhuyan, the landlady bluntly informed her that no accommodation was available once her religious background became known.
In another example from Odisha, he referred to resistance by some parents to the government’s mid-day meal programme because the food was prepared by Dalit women employed as cooks. He noted that some parents had objected aggressively and refused to allow their children to consume meals cooked by members of the Scheduled Caste community.
Describing these incidents as “the tip of the iceberg,” Justice Bhuyan said they reveal how far society remains from the benchmark of constitutional morality even 75 years into the Republic. He observed that while the Constitution lays down standards of equality and dignity, the morality practised within homes and communities often diverges sharply from those values.
He emphasised that constitutional morality requires governance through the rule of law rather than the rule of popular opinion. Referring to the evolution of the doctrine through judicial decisions, he cited Naz Foundation v Union of India, in which the Delhi High Court read down Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, holding that popular morality cannot restrict fundamental rights under Article 21. Though the judgment was later overturned in Suresh Kumar Koushal v Naz Foundation, the Supreme Court ultimately restored and expanded the principle in Navtej Singh Johar v Union of India, affirming that constitutional morality must prevail over majoritarian views.
“In our constitutional scheme, it is the constitutionality of the issue before the court that is relevant, not the dominant or popular view,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also addressed the functioning of the district judiciary, underlining that trial courts are the first point of contact for most litigants and form the foundation of the justice delivery system. He stressed that due importance must be given to the recording of evidence and adjudication of bail matters.
Highlighting the role of High Courts, he said their supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution is intended as a shield to correct grave jurisdictional errors, not as a mechanism to substitute the discretion or factual appreciation of trial judges.
He recalled that several distinguished judges, including Justice H R Khanna, Justice A M Ahmadi, and Justice Fathima Beevi, began their careers in the district judiciary.
On representation within the judicial system, Justice Bhuyan noted that Telangana has made significant strides in gender inclusion. Out of a sanctioned strength of 655 judicial officers in the Telangana Judicial Service, 478 are currently serving, of whom 283 are women, exceeding 50 per cent representation. He added that members of Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, minority communities, and persons with disabilities are also represented in the state’s judiciary.
He observed that greater representation of women, marginalised communities, persons with disabilities, and sexual minorities would help make the judiciary more inclusive and reflective of India’s diversity. “The judiciary must represent all the colours of the rainbow and become a rainbow institution,” he said.
Justice Bhuyan also referred to the recent restoration by the Supreme Court of the requirement of a minimum three years of practice at the Bar for entry-level judicial posts. While acknowledging that the requirement ensures practical exposure, he cautioned that its impact on women aspirants, especially those from rural or small-town backgrounds facing social and financial constraints, would need to be carefully observed over time.
Concluding his address, he reiterated that the justice system must strive to bridge the gap between constitutional ideals and lived realities, ensuring that the rule of law remains paramount.
