New Delhi: What began as a bail petition filed by a man held four years in a Thane jail has become a landmark test of India’s prison administration. On April 1, the Supreme Court censured its own Registry for failing to promptly notify states and high courts of its directions in the matter. It directed all states, Union territories, and high courts to file affidavits on the systemic non-production of undertrial prisoners before courts. The case returns on May 13, 2026 at 3 p.m.The case is SLP(Crl) No. 12690/2025, Shashikumar alias Shahi Chikna Vivekanand Jurmani v. State of Maharashtra. The petitioner was arrested in 2021 in a case registered at Vitthalwadi police station in Ulhasnagar, Thane. He was charged under IPC Sections 143, 147, 148, 149, 307, 326, 353, and 333 in connection with an alleged attempt to murder. He spent over four years in judicial custody without bail.The systemic dimension of the case came to light in December 2025. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Prashant Kumar Mishra made a disturbing discovery while hearing the bail plea. The petitioner had not been produced before the trial court on 55 of the 85 dates scheduled for hearing. The bench described the lapse as “appalling and shocking.”It granted the petitioner bail. The bench made clear that the bail was not granted on the merits of the underlying criminal case. It was granted because the state had repeatedly violated the petitioner’s fundamental right to be present at the proceedings against him. A co-accused, Umesh alias Omi Bansilal Kishnani, described as identically situated, had already been released on bail. The bench directed the director general of prisons, Maharashtra, to personally inquire into the lapses, fix responsibility, and file a personally affirmed affidavit within two months.Officers summoned, explanations found deficientWhen the matter returned on February 3, the bench had been reconstituted. Justice R. Mahadevan had replaced Justice Mishra. Three officers appeared before the court: the commissioner of police of the Thane Commissionerate, the superintendent of police of Kalyan Jail, and the additional senior jailor (judicial). Each apologised unconditionally before the bench. The additional solicitor general requested that the officers be permitted to withdraw their deficient affidavits. The court granted one final opportunity, with fresh show-cause responses due by March 10.The bench then considered the broader picture. It found that the problem was unlikely to be confined to Thane or even to Maharashtra. Non-production of undertrials was described as a potentially pan-India problem requiring comprehensive adjudication. The directors general of police and the heads of prison departments of all states and union territories were impleaded as party respondents.The court also addressed the question of technology. It noted that provisions already exist for producing prisoners through video-conferencing from jail premises. This system was not being widely used, the court observed. All high courts were directed to report what measures they had taken to establish dedicated virtual courts for undertrial production, particularly on dates when physical presence was unnecessary.Registry rebuked on recordThe February 24 order, which crystallised these directions, was uploaded on March 9 2026. It contained a clear direction, at paragraph 15, for the Registry to issue notice to all states, UTs, and high courts immediately and to amend the cause title. That notice was issued only on 24 March 2026, after the intervening holidays.On April 1, the bench placed this delay on the judicial record. A judicial direction, the court observed, required no prompting from the petitioner. There was no occasion for the Registry to await the filing of spare copies before acting. The bench extended indulgence and refrained from calling for a formal explanation, but cautioned the Registry against repetition. Sandeep Deshmukh, standing counsel for the Bombay high court, volunteered to circulate the February 24 order to all Standing Counsels and Registrars General of high courts. The court accepted this and directed all Standing Counsels and Registrars General to take full instructions and file affidavits within three weeks.A crisis in numbersIndia’s undertrial crisis gives this litigation its urgency. According to the NCRB’s Prison Statistics India 2023 report, released in September 2025, there were 3.84 lakh undertrial prisoners in India as of December 31,. 2023. They constituted nearly three in four of all 5.30 lakh prisoners in the country. Uttar Pradesh held the largest number of undertrials, followed by Bihar and Maharashtra.Non-production before courts compounds the injury of prolonged pre-trial detention. Each missed production date can stall bail hearings, witness examination, and charge framing. The right to speedy trial is a guaranteed facet of Article 21 of the Constitution, as held by the Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon v. State of Bihar in 1979. The court has previously addressed the broader undertrial problem through the Undertrial Review Committees established by its 2015 order. The present case targets a more specific failure: the systematic default in producing prisoners before the very courts adjudicating their cases.The solicitor general, Tushar Mehta, and the additional solicitor general, S.V. Raju, appeared before the court on the Union’s behalf on April 1. Representatives of over a dozen states and high courts were also present.