Supreme Court To Examine Non-Production Of Undertrials Before Courts Across India; Directs Impleadment Of All HCs, DGPs & Prison Heads
Kiran Raj
The Supreme Court Division Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and R. Mahadevan, while hearing a plea originally arising from the non-production of an undertrial prisoner before courts in Maharashtra, extended the scope of the proceedings to address the issue on a nationwide scale. Finding that the failure to produce incarcerated persons before courts reflects a systemic concern across all States and Union Territories, the Court directed the impleadment of Directors General of Police, heads of prison departments, and all High Courts through their Registrars General as party respondents to comprehensively examine and remedy the problem.
The matter originates from an order passed on December 2, 2025, wherein the Court strongly criticised Maharashtra prison authorities for repeatedly failing to produce an undertrial accused before the trial court. The accused had remained in custody for over four years and was not produced before the trial court on 55 out of 85 hearing dates. The Court described the situation as appalling and shocking, granted bail to the accused, and held that such repeated non-production constitutes a serious violation of fundamental safeguards available to prisoners.
On February 3, 2026, the Court directed the Commissioner of Police of Thane Commissionerate, the Superintendent of Police of Kalyan Jail, and the Additional Senior Jailor (Judicial) to remain physically present at the next hearing and file their show-cause responses.
At the hearing on February 24, 2026, the officers appeared before the Court but had filed simple affidavits rather than the show-cause responses explicitly required. The Court noted this deviation, found the officers' explanation of administrative preoccupation unacceptable, and criticised the casualness displayed by the Maharashtra prison authorities in failing to comply with the earlier direction.
The Court recorded its displeasure at the officers' failure to file a show-cause as directed, noting that the earlier order dated 03.02.2026 had in unambiguous terms required that the officers "shall remain physically present with their show cause on the date fixed."
On the officers' failure to comply with this direction, the Court observed that "this is an indication of extreme casualness on the part of the officers in not filing a show-cause," and stated that on this ground alone, it could have rejected the affidavits and proceeded with issuing notice for contempt for violation of its order.
The Court further recorded that "lame excuses have been made for justifying what has happened" and found such excuses to be totally unacceptable. It observed that a common man's right, particularly that of a person who is incarcerated and is required under law to be produced before the Court, "has been totally extinguished and the officers have shown it to be a trivial issue and taking the plea of being engaged/preoccupied with other administrative contingencies."
On the broader dimension of the issue, the Court stated that "this is not a localised situation, but rather a Pan-India situation, which the Court is inclined to address in these proceedings for the larger public benefit especially, when it relates to the life and liberty of a common man." It further observed that "the matter being of a serious nature, which is borne out from the order dated 02.12.2025, cannot be under-estimated" and that it had "shocked the conscious of this Court."
On the utility of virtual production, the Court noted that the existing video conferencing mechanism "is not being widely used" and that it "could be one of the ways out as it balances the manpower requirements with the safety and security requirements as well." Accordingly, the Court directed the High Courts "to apprise the Court as to what measures they have taken for having a dedicated virtual Court only for ensuring the presence of the under-trial persons, who are incarcerated, on dates which are not effective in the sense that when they are not actually physically required for the purposes of examination of witnesses, etc."
The Court ordered: "The affidavits filed by the above officers shall not be taken into consideration and they are permitted to file a fresh show-cause by 10.03.2026. The said show-cause besides giving only the factual details, would also clearly lay down the modality which the Commissioner of Police, Thane, has put in place to ensure that in future, no such incident occurs."
The Court directed the impleadment of the Directors General of Police, the Inspectors General and Directors General of Prisons, and the heads of prison departments of all States and Union Territories as party respondents. All High Courts across States and Union Territories were similarly directed to be impleaded through their respective Registrars General. Notices were directed to be issued to all newly impleaded respondents, and the Registry was instructed to serve notices on all concerned officers and High Courts and to amend the cause title accordingly.
The matter was scheduled for further hearing on April 1, 2026, at 2:30 p.m., retaining its part-heard status. The officers who were personally present before the Court on the date of the order were exempted from appearing in person until further directions.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mr. Pranay Chitale, Advocate-on-Record; Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Advocate; Ms. Smiti Verma, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Dutta, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General; Mr. S.V. Raju, Additional Solicitor General; Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Advocate; Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Advocate-on-Record; Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Advocate; Mr. Bharat Bagla, Advocate; Mr. Sourav Singh, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Krishna, Advocate; Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Advocate; Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Advocate
Case Title: Shashikumar Alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 183/2026 in SLP(Crl) No. 12690/2025
Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R. Mahadevan
