The Crossbill News Desk
A bail plea filed by an undertrial prisoner in Maharashtra has evolved into a nationwide judicial inquiry into systemic lapses in India’s prison administration, with the Supreme Court examining the recurring failure to produce accused persons before trial courts.
On April 1, the court sharply criticised its own Registry for delays in implementing earlier judicial directions and ordered all states, Union territories and high courts to file affidavits explaining the non-production of undertrial prisoners. The matter will now be heard on May 13, 2026 at 3 p.m.
The case, SLP(Crl) No. 12690/2025, Shashikumar alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra, arose from the detention of a man arrested in 2021 in an alleged attempt-to-murder case registered at Vitthalwadi police station in Ulhasnagar, Thane. Charged under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 353 and 333, the petitioner remained in judicial custody for over four years without securing bail.
During hearings in December 2025, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra found that the accused had not been produced before the trial court on 55 of the 85 listed hearing dates, calling the situation “appalling and shocking.”
Bail was granted not on the merits of the criminal case but because authorities had repeatedly violated the petitioner’s right to participate in proceedings against him. The bench also directed the Maharashtra director general of prisons to conduct a personal inquiry, fix responsibility and submit an affidavit.
When the case was taken up again on February 3 before a reconstituted bench including Justice R. Mahadevan, senior police and prison officials appeared in court and tendered unconditional apologies.
On the request of the additional solicitor general, the court permitted withdrawal of earlier affidavits and granted a final opportunity to submit fresh show-cause responses by March 10.
Expanding the scope of the proceedings, the bench observed that the failure to produce undertrials was unlikely to be limited to a single district or state and described it as a possible nationwide issue requiring comprehensive scrutiny. Directors general of police and prison authorities across India were impleaded as party respondents.
The court further noted that video-conferencing facilities already exist for virtual production of prisoners but are not being effectively used, directing all high courts to report steps taken to establish dedicated virtual courts.
The February 24 order formalising these directions was uploaded only on March 9, and notices to states and high courts were issued on March 24.
Recording its displeasure on April 1, the bench stated that a judicial direction required no prompting from the petitioner and that there was no reason for the Registry to wait for spare copies before acting. While refraining from seeking a formal explanation, the court cautioned against repetition. Standing counsel Sandeep Deshmukh undertook to circulate the order to all high courts, after which the bench directed Registrars General and standing counsels nationwide to obtain instructions and file affidavits within three weeks.
The proceedings have drawn attention to the scale of India’s undertrial crisis. According to the NCRB’s Prison Statistics India 2023 report released in September 2025, the country had 3.84 lakh undertrial prisoners as of December 31, 2023 — nearly three-fourths of the total prison population of 5.30 lakh, with Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra recording the highest numbers.
Repeated failure to produce prisoners delays bail hearings, charge framing and trials, undermining the right to speedy trial recognised as part of Article 21 in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979).
The Supreme Court’s ongoing examination now seeks to determine whether such procedural lapses represent isolated administrative failures or a deeper structural problem affecting undertrial justice across India.
On April 1, the court sharply criticised its own Registry for delays in implementing earlier judicial directions and ordered all states, Union territories and high courts to file affidavits explaining the non-production of undertrial prisoners. The matter will now be heard on May 13, 2026 at 3 p.m.
The case, SLP(Crl) No. 12690/2025, Shashikumar alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra, arose from the detention of a man arrested in 2021 in an alleged attempt-to-murder case registered at Vitthalwadi police station in Ulhasnagar, Thane. Charged under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 353 and 333, the petitioner remained in judicial custody for over four years without securing bail.
During hearings in December 2025, a bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra found that the accused had not been produced before the trial court on 55 of the 85 listed hearing dates, calling the situation “appalling and shocking.”
Bail was granted not on the merits of the criminal case but because authorities had repeatedly violated the petitioner’s right to participate in proceedings against him. The bench also directed the Maharashtra director general of prisons to conduct a personal inquiry, fix responsibility and submit an affidavit.
When the case was taken up again on February 3 before a reconstituted bench including Justice R. Mahadevan, senior police and prison officials appeared in court and tendered unconditional apologies.
On the request of the additional solicitor general, the court permitted withdrawal of earlier affidavits and granted a final opportunity to submit fresh show-cause responses by March 10.
Expanding the scope of the proceedings, the bench observed that the failure to produce undertrials was unlikely to be limited to a single district or state and described it as a possible nationwide issue requiring comprehensive scrutiny. Directors general of police and prison authorities across India were impleaded as party respondents.
The court further noted that video-conferencing facilities already exist for virtual production of prisoners but are not being effectively used, directing all high courts to report steps taken to establish dedicated virtual courts.
The February 24 order formalising these directions was uploaded only on March 9, and notices to states and high courts were issued on March 24.
Recording its displeasure on April 1, the bench stated that a judicial direction required no prompting from the petitioner and that there was no reason for the Registry to wait for spare copies before acting. While refraining from seeking a formal explanation, the court cautioned against repetition. Standing counsel Sandeep Deshmukh undertook to circulate the order to all high courts, after which the bench directed Registrars General and standing counsels nationwide to obtain instructions and file affidavits within three weeks.
The proceedings have drawn attention to the scale of India’s undertrial crisis. According to the NCRB’s Prison Statistics India 2023 report released in September 2025, the country had 3.84 lakh undertrial prisoners as of December 31, 2023 — nearly three-fourths of the total prison population of 5.30 lakh, with Uttar Pradesh, Bihar and Maharashtra recording the highest numbers.
Repeated failure to produce prisoners delays bail hearings, charge framing and trials, undermining the right to speedy trial recognised as part of Article 21 in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar (1979).
The Supreme Court’s ongoing examination now seeks to determine whether such procedural lapses represent isolated administrative failures or a deeper structural problem affecting undertrial justice across India.
Comments (0)
Leave a Comment