SC Mandates National SOP to Curb Legal Aid Delays; Standardizes Timelines.

The case of Shankar Mahto v. State of Bihar (2026 INSC 369) has came to the rescue for those who are availing Lagal Aid as the Supreme Court approved a comprehensive Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) to tackle inordinate delays in filing legal aid appeals and SLPs in critical cases where the Legal Aid is obtained.

Case Background: The proceedings originated from an appeal by the appellant, Shankar Mahto, challenging a 2014 death sentence confirmation by the Patna High Court. During the course of the litigation, the Supreme Court observed that inordinate delays were frequently affecting matters involving legal aid, leading to a lack of "even-handedness" in dealing with the condonation of delay.

The Bench, comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, provided significant legal and conceptual clarity on the state's duty to provide effective legal representation:

Reaffirming a long line of precedents, the Court held that free legal aid is a fundamental right traceable to Article 21 and attaches from the moment an accused is first produced before a Magistrate. It noted that prisoners do not surrender their fundamental rights at the prison gate and that the State has a positive obligation to provide counsel regardless of an explicit request.

Regarding the laxity of statutory authorities in responding to judicial orders and the "chronic" delays in filing petitions via legal aid institutions the Apex Court expressed its disapointment and observed that these delays often stem from incomplete documentation, vernacular translation hurdles, and a lack of timely communication between stakeholders.

The Supreme Court issued new Standard Operating Procedure to categorize to prioritize resources. Such as category A1 (High-Priority Criminal Cases) includes matters involving death sentences, life imprisonment, or sentences of ten years or more, as well as juvenile offenders, requiring immediate action to prevent prolonged injustice.

On the Binding Timelines and Accountability the Apex Court directed that the timelines mentioned under Heading 5 of the SOP shall be treated as binding for streamlining the filing of appeals. It mandated the creation of Monitoring Committees at every High Court and the Supreme Court—comprising senior advocates and member secretaries—to review progress on a fortnightly basis and recommend disciplinary actions for defaults.

Consequently, the Apex Court appointed a senior counsel as amicus curiae and initiated a systemic inquiry involving the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee (SCLSC) and the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA). While the original death reference was eventually decided and de-tagged, the Court continued the proceedings to address structural gaps in the legal aid mechanism.

The Supreme Court concluded the matter by approving and mandating a "Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Translation and Transmission of Records for Filing Legal Aid Appeals and Special Leave Petitions (SLPs), 2025". The Court emphasized that legal aid is not merely a policy matter but a constitutional responsibility that advances the broader ideals of justice and equality. By making the SOP's timelines binding, the Court aimed to establish a structured, efficient, and accountable framework to ensure that the rights of convicts to speedy justice are not infringed by procedural bottlenecks.

CORAM: JUSTICE SANJAY KAROL & JUSTICE NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH.