In a stern rebuke that echoed through the judicial corridors, the Supreme Court has described Maharashtra’s criminal trial machinery as being in a “shocking state of affairs.” The discovery? Hundreds of cases where charges remain unframed for nearly two decades—some lingering since 2006.
A bench led by Justices Sanjay Karol and N Kotiswar Singh stumbled upon this staggering backlog while hearing the plea of Shubham Ganpati, also known as Ganesh Rathod—an undertrial jailed since April 2021, whose trial has not even begun despite a chargesheet being filed the same year.
When the Bombay High Court’s Registrar General submitted an affidavit listing the extent of the problem, the Supreme Court found the details nothing short of alarming. “To say the least,” the bench observed, “it reflects a very shocking state of affairs in the conduct of trials before different courts in the State of Maharashtra.”
The affidavit revealed 649 criminal cases where charge sheets had been filed between 2006 and 2020, yet the process of framing charges never began. The reasons cited ranged from the non-production of accused individuals to the repeated absence of advocates—both prosecution and defence. The Court found such excuses indefensible.
Ordering a sweeping inquiry, the top court directed the Registrar General to seek detailed reports from every District and Sessions Judge in Maharashtra. These reports must clarify what measures have been taken to expedite charge framing, and whether persistent non-cooperation has led to bail cancellations or disciplinary action.
The justices reminded all concerned that endless delays strike at the very heart of Article 21—the right to a speedy trial. The Court noted that Rathod had been incarcerated for over four years without progress, his case frozen at the same stage as the day he entered custody.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had sought explanations from the Bombay High Court on why the trial had not moved forward and requested data on other undertrials in similar limbo. Despite prior circulars directing courts to ensure the physical or virtual presence of undertrial prisoners to prevent adjournments, the bench now wants proof that these directions are actually being followed.
The Registrar General has been told to submit a fresh affidavit within ten days, reporting compliance and informing the Chief Justice of the Bombay High Court about the Supreme Court’s latest concerns.
The matter will come up again on October 17, with the Court signaling it expects real answers—and accountability—this time.
