Supreme Court to Tighten Timelines for Framing of Charges Under BNSS, Calls Delay a Major Cause of Backlog

The Bench of Justice Aravind Kumar and Justice N.V. Anjaria noted that despite the clear mandate under Section 251(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which requires that charges in cases exclusively triable by a sessions court be framed within 60 days of the first hearing, the provision is not being followed in letter or spirit.

“We have noticed, time and again, that charges are not being framed even after months and years of filing the chargesheet. This is one of the primary reasons for delay in trial. Until charges are framed, the trial cannot commence. This situation seems to be prevalent in most courts, and we are of the considered opinion that certain directions need to be issued pan-India,” the Bench observed.

The Court was hearing a criminal matter where the accused had been in custody for nearly two years, but charges had not yet been framed.

Expressing displeasure, Justice Aravind Kumar remarked, “Why take years and years to frame charges? In civil cases, it is non-framing of issues; in criminal cases, non-framing of charges. We want to know what the difficulty is, or we will issue directions for all courts across the country. We propose to do it.”

Taking note of submissions by the State of Bihar and Maharashtra, the Court acknowledged that such delays are common across jurisdictions.

The Counsel for Maharashtra cited an earlier order by Justice Sanjay Karol, which described the “shocking state of affairs” in the State, noting that charges had not been framed in 649 cases.

However, the Bench made clear that it would not wait for district-level reports, stating, “We will issue directions pan-India.”

In light of the systemic issue, the Court appointed Senior Advocate Siddharth Luthra as amicus curiae to assist the Bench, alongside the counsel for the State of Bihar. It also directed that a copy of the petition and the present order be furnished to the Attorney General for India, seeking his assistance on the proposed nationwide guidelines.

“The petitioner, accused under Sections 309(5), 109(1), 103, 105 of the BNSS and Section 27 of the Arms Act, has been in custody since August 10, 2024; for nearly a year, yet charges have not been framed. The matter reflects a larger pattern of systemic delay,” the Bench noted in its order.

Indicating that it intends to lay down clear procedural directions for all trial courts in the country, the Court said, “We are of the considered view that certain directions need to be issued pan-India to ensure adherence to the statutory mandate.”

The matter will be taken up after two weeks for further hearing.