Supreme Court pulls up Maharashtra govt. over ‘disturbing’ delays in criminal trials
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 10, 2026) observed that it was “disturbing” that the Maharashtra government routinely opposes bail applications “tooth and nail” but
The Supreme Court on Friday (July 10, 2026) observed that it was “disturbing” that the Maharashtra government routinely opposes bail applications “tooth and nail” but fails to discharge its obligation of ensuring that criminal trials are conducted without undue delay. The court directed the State to apprise it of any specific policy or mechanism in place to address delays in the conduct of criminal trials. A Bench comprising Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Sheel Nagu was hearing an appeal filed by a foreign national challenging a Bombay High Court order rejecting his bail application in a case involving charges of murder and rioting. The Bench noted that he had remained in custody for over four years, during which only two of the 45 prosecution witnesses had been examined. “We have noticed a disturbing aspect. The petitioner has remained in custody for over four years and, out of 45 witnesses, only two have been examined. This is something that has been bothering the court for quite some time. The State opposes the prayer for bail tooth and nail, but when it comes to discharging its obligation of conducting the trial without undue delay, it is found to be totally lacking,” the Bench said.
‘Double standards’ The counsel appearing for the Maharashtra government apprised the Bench that “substantial progress” had since been made in the trial. “These are old matters. I can say that we are now improving... I know it is our fault, and we are trying to improve,” he submitted. Justice Amanullah, however, expressed serious reservations about the slow pace of the trial. He also pointed out that the Maharashtra government had repeatedly come under scrutiny for delays that resulted in the prolonged incarceration of undertrial prisoners. “Every day we see that Maharashtra is in default. Tooth and nail opposing bail, but nothing on the ground. Double standards. We will expose you before the public,” the judge remarked. The State counsel then sought an opportunity to file a detailed counter-affidavit explaining the reasons for the slow progress of the trial. He further urged the court to call for a report from the trial court to ascertain the “administrative problems” that had contributed to it. ‘Deprivation of liberty’ The Bench accordingly directed the Maharashtra government to place on record an affidavit explaining the reasons for the prolonged pendency of the trial. It further directed the State to disclose whether it has put in place a specific policy to address such delays so that accused persons are not forced to remain in custody due to institutional limitations beyond their control.
The BriefWire