The recent appointment of Sidharth Luthra as amicus curiae by Supreme Court of India marks a significant development in the Court’s evolving attempt to address systemic delays in criminal trials under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS).The decision reflects the Court’s concern over prolonged periods between filing of a chargesheet and the framing of charges — an issue that has repeatedly stalled trials, prolonged judicial custody, and eroded public confidence in timely justice delivery.
Background: The Problem of Delay under BNSS
Under Section 251(b) of the BNSS, cases triable by a Sessions Court require the framing of charges within 60 days of the first hearing. However, court records and multiple judicial observations reveal a harsh reality: in many jurisdictions, charges remain unframed even months or years after a chargesheet has been filed. This inordinate delay has become a root cause of stalled trials, mounting case pendency, and extended undertrial incarceration — undermining the very premise of timely justice.
Judges from the Bench have expressed dismay at this phenomenon. During recent hearings, questions were raised: “Why take years and years to frame charges?” — highlighting how criminal trials often remain stuck at the preliminary stage, unable to proceed until charges are formally framed.
The Court has recognized that structural and procedural laxities contribute to this problem — including backlog in courts, delay in prosecution readiness, poor coordination between investigative and prosecuting agencies, and judicial capacity constraints.
Why Sidharth Luthra’s Appointment Matters
Sidharth Luthra is not only a seasoned criminal law practitioner and a former Additional Solicitor General of India; he is also an academic — previously holding the K.L. Arora Chair in Criminal Law at NLU-Delhi. This dual role — as a litigator and scholar — equips him to assist the Court in bridging the gap between legal theory, procedural practice, and ground realities.
By appointing Luthra as amicus curiae, the Supreme Court ensures the involvement of an independent, respected, and knowledgeable expert whose task is to provide unbiased, evidence-based inputs on the charge-framing delays.
According to recent reports, Luthra has already taken proactive steps — reaching out to district and High Court registries for verified data on the number of pending cases with unframed charges, timelines, and regional breakdowns. This data-driven approach allows the Court to assess the extent of the problem beyond anecdotal evidence and move toward empirically informed judicial directions.
Such an intervention is likely to lend credibility and practicality to any nationwide guidelines the Court might formulate. As many legal commentators have noted, systemic reform requires diagnosis rooted in facts — not merely broad judicial ire — and Luthra’s involvement signals the Court’s willingness to follow that path.
Broader Implications for Criminal Justice Reform
The appointment highlights several key realities and possibilities:
- Urgent need for uniformity: The delays are not isolated to a few states or courts; rather, they reflect a national malaise. The Court’s proposed pan-India guidelines could standardize timelines and reduce regional disparities.
- Protection of undertrial rights: For accused persons languishing in jail without framed charges, this move may provide a long-overdue opportunity for relief through bail or discharge if the lapse persists.
- Restoration of judicial efficiency: By ensuring timely initiation of trials, reduction in backlog, and faster case resolution, the courts can improve overall functioning and reduce pendency.
- Strengthening public trust: When justice is not unduly delayed, public faith in the criminal justice system increases — especially for victims, complainants, and accused alike.
Challenges Ahead — What It Would Take to Make This Meaningful
While the Court’s initiative is welcome, effective reform will require more than just guidelines. Several structural challenges need attention:
- Judicial capacity and resource allocation: Many courts are understaffed. Without additional judges or infrastructure improvements, speeding up charge-framing may overburden courts.
- Coordination between investigating agencies and prosecution: Even with judicial will, delays may persist if investigative agencies are slow in furnishing required records, or prosecutions are not trial-ready.
- Administrative accountability and follow-up: Merely issuing directives may not suffice; there must be a mechanism for monitoring compliance, reporting failures, and applying corrections over time.
- Uniform data collection and transparency: As demonstrated by the amicus-led data initiative, case-level transparency will be crucial. States and courts must maintain accurate, accessible records of pending cases, deadlines, and compliance status.
Why This Moment Matters for Legal Stakeholders
For young lawyers, civil-society observers, law students, and academics, this development underlines a rare opportunity: the chance to shape criminal-justice reform at the highest level. The Court is not only addressing a technical procedural issue but is stepping into a space of structural accountability and institutional reform.
For policymakers and law-makers, the Luthra appointment and pending guidelines could serve as a blueprint: if successful, the BNSS-charge-framing reform could inspire similar efforts to tackle other inefficiencies — from delays in issue-framing in civil cases to procedural bottlenecks in evidence recording.
For the common citizen — complainant or accused — it represents hope that the justice system may finally reduce delays and fulfill its promise of timely justice.
Conclusion
The infusion of expertise, empirical analysis, and institutional seriousness marks a potentially transformational moment in India’s criminal-justice reform. With Sidharth Luthra cases acting as amicus curiae, the Court’s effort toward establishing nationwide guidelines on charge framing under the BNSS gains credibility and clarity. If diligently implemented, this could reduce trial delays, protect undertrial rights, and restore faith in judicial efficiency.
Ultimately, the success of this initiative will depend not just on judicial pronouncements but on systemic will — from courts, prosecuting agencies, administrative machinery, and the legal community. Should all stakeholders rise to the occasion, this effort could mark the beginning of a new era: one in which justice is not only done, but done on time.
