Supreme Court Addresses Critical Delays in Charge Framing for Criminal Trials
On October 29, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a major order in the case of Aman Kumar v. The State of Bihar, bringing sharp focus to a significant failing within the criminal justice system: the prolonged delay in framing charges.
The case centered on the petitioner, Aman Kumar, who was arrested and charged under various sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) and the Arms Act (specifically Sections 309(5), 109(1), 103, 105 of BNS, and Section 27 of the Arms Act). Despite the charge sheet being filed, charges had not been formally framed even after Kumar had been incarcerated for nearly a year while awaiting a decision on his regular bail application.
The Principle: Client Privilege Under BSA
The Court emphasized that the core of the issue is the client privilege established under Section 132 of the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 (BSA). This statutory provision ensures that an advocate cannot be compelled to disclose confidential communications made to them by their client.
The Supreme Court strictly curtailed the power of investigating officers (IOs) and Station House Officers (SHOs), holding that they must not issue summons to an advocate representing an accused simply "to know the details of the case."
Constitutional and Statutory Violations
A bench comprising Justices Aravind Kumar and N.V. Anjaria took up the matter and noted that this problem of delayed charge framing is widespread across the country. Such delays are a fundamental obstruction to a speedy trial, which the court affirmed is a constitutional right protected under Article 21. Moreover, these procedural holdups significantly contribute to the growing backlog of cases in courts.
The Supreme Court highlighted a specific statutory provision being ignored: Section 251(1)(b) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). This section mandates that charges for cases exclusively triable by a Session Court must be framed within sixty days of the first hearing. The bench found that this clear deadline was routinely disregarded, with charges often being framed months or even years after the initial incident.
Widespread Concern and Judicial Action
During the hearing, the Counsel for the State of Bihar formally requested the court to establish new guidelines to address the substantial issues created by these delays.
Adding weight to the problem, a counsel from Maharashtra cited that another Supreme Court bench, led by Justice Sanjay Karol, had previously voiced serious alarm over the situation in that state, calling it a "shocking state of affairs." The court's attention was drawn to a staggering 649 cases in Maharashtra alone that were ready for trial but stalled because charges had not yet been framed.
In recognition of the severity and national scope of the issue, the Court requested assistance from several top legal officers to draft its final, comprehensive order:
Attorney General of India: R. Venkataramani
Solicitor General of India: Tushar Mehta
Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae): Sidharth Luthra
Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae): S. Nagamuthu
The Road Ahead: Pan-India Guidelines
The Supreme Court took a firm and decisive stance, asserting its authority to issue Pan-India guidelines to ensure strict compliance with the mandatory sixty-day period for framing charges. The primary objective behind this action is to safeguard the rights of the accused by guaranteeing speedy trials and enforcing obedience to existing laws. The matter has been relisted to allow time for the draft of these comprehensive, nationwide guidelines to be prepared.
- -STUTI SHARMA Student, 1stYear, Himachal PradeshNational Law University, Shimla.