The Supreme Court on Wednesday lamented the persistent delay in framing charges in criminal trials across the country, observing that such hold-ups are among the primary causes of stagnation in the justice system.
Indicating that the problem may require a uniform corrective mechanism, the court said it would examine whether nationwide guidelines should be issued to ensure that trial courts adhere to the statutory timelines mandated under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).
A bench of justices Aravind Kumar and NV Anjaria noted that Section 251(b) of the BNSS requires charges in cases exclusively triable by a sessions court to be framed within 60 days of the first hearing.
“We have noticed, time and again, that charges are not being framed even months and years after the charge sheet is filed. Until the charges are framed, the trial simply does not commence. This is one of the primary reasons for the trial getting delayed. Until and unless it is framed, trial will not 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,” recorded the bench in its order, adding that the situation may warrant “pan-India directions”.
The court appointed senior advocate Sidharth Luthra as amicus curiae and sought assistance from Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and senior advocate S Nagamuthu as it considers formulating uniform directions applicable to all trial courts. The counsel for the state of Bihar was also requested to assist.
{{/usCountry}}The court appointed senior advocate Sidharth Luthra as amicus curiae and sought assistance from Attorney General R Venkataramani, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, and senior advocate S Nagamuthu as it considers formulating uniform directions applicable to all trial courts. The counsel for the state of Bihar was also requested to assist.
{{/usCountry}}The bench was hearing a bail plea filed by Aman Kumar, who has been in custody since August 2024 in a case involving charges under Sections 309(5), 109(1), 103 and 105 of the BNSS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, relating to robbery and attempt to murder. The charge sheet in the case was filed on September 30, 2024, but charges have not yet been framed, despite the accused remaining in judicial custody for nearly a year.
Kumar’s bail application was earlier rejected by a trial court in October 2024 and later by the Patna High Court in March 2025, prompting him to approach the Supreme Court on, among other grounds, that he could not be indefinitely incarcerated as an undertrial.
During the hearing, Justice Kumar questioned why delays in the initiation of trial proceedings had become routine. “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,” observed the bench.
The court was informed that similar concerns had recently been flagged in Maharashtra, where a bench led by Justice Sanjay Karol had noted 649 cases where charges had not been framed. While counsel pointed to steps being taken to collect data from district courts, the bench said it was unwilling to wait:
“We will not wait for information from district courts. We will issue directions pan-India… trials cannot be delayed. The moment chargesheet is filed, charge needs to be framed. Some may be discharged that is fine. Pan-India guidelines will have to be formed in this regard,” it added.
Relisting the matter in two weeks, the bench said that it would articulate the legal principles required for uniform implementation and compliance.