Supreme Court Flags Inexplicable and Huge Delay in Trials in Maharashtra The Supreme Court has again expressed alarm over chronic delays in criminal trials in the state of Maharashtra . A bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice R Mahadevan issued a notice in a bail plea concerning a case registered in June 2019, demanding a personally‑affirmed affidavit from the Commissioner of Police, Nashik to explain the sluggish trial progress. Key Developments The Court highlighted that despite the FIR being lodged in June 2019, only one witness has been examined. A notice was issued to the Commissioner of Police to detail the circumstances causing the delay and to specify each accused’s role in the stagnation. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 10 April 2026 . The Court reiterated earlier observations that hundreds of cases in Maharashtra remain stuck at the charge‑framing stage, some dating back to 2006. Previous judgments have also flagged delays under special statutes such as MCOCA and UAPA , urging the creation of dedicated courts. Important Facts The underlying case involves a robbery and murder at a Muthoot Finance office in Nashik on 14 June 2019 . The accused allegedly entered with firearms, looted gold, and shot an employee who resisted. The defence argued that the test identification parade was delayed, the accused have been in custody for over six years, and trial progress is minimal. The State countered with forensic evidence, CCTV footage, a confessional statement, and the accused’s criminal antecedents, attributing delay to non‑cooperation of the accused. UPSC Relevance Judicial efficiency and the right to a speedy trial are recurring themes in bail plea and criminal justice reforms. Understanding the systemic bottlenecks in state courts helps aspirants analyse governance challenges, the implementation of criminal procedure codes, and the role of higher judiciary in enforcing accountability. The reference to special statutes like MCOCA and UAPA also ties into discussions on anti‑terror legislation and its impact on civil liberties. Way Forward To curb such delays, the Court has suggested: (i) strict monitoring of case timelines by state judicial administrations; (ii) appointment of dedicated fast‑track courts for cases under special statutes; (iii) periodic reporting by the Commissioner of Police on trial progress; and (iv) stronger enforcement of the constitutional right to a speedy trial under Article 21. For UPSC candidates, these measures illustrate the interplay between judicial pronouncements, administrative action, and policy reforms aimed at strengthening the rule of law.