The Union Government recently okayed the continuation of 1,000-plus Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS). This initiative also encompasses 389 dedicated POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) Courts and is set to span two years, from April 2021 to March 2023. The Central share for this scheme will be funded by the Nirbhaya Fund.
The Concept and History of FTCs
Fast track courts (FTCs) were first proposed by the Eleventh Finance Commission in 2000. Their primary objective was to drastically reduce, if not entirely eliminate, pending cases in district and subordinate courts within five years. Consequently, the Centre allocated Rs 502.90 crore to generate 1,734 extra courts in numerous states for a five-year period. However, the central government ceased funding fast-track courts in 2011, a decision that was later contested in the Supreme Court in 2012. Despite this, the apex court declared that it was up to individual states to continue or discontinue these courts based on their financial status.
Initiation of FTCs across States
Following the tragic gang rape and murder in December 2012, the Union Government established the ‘Nirbhaya Fund’, revised the Juvenile Justice Act, and instituted fast-track Mahila Courts. Some states like Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar and more followed suit, opening FTCs specifically for rape cases. In 2019, the government sanctioned a scheme to implement 1,023 FTSCs to promptly manage unresolved rape cases under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and crimes under the POCSO Act.
Role and Performance of Fast Track Courts
FTSCs serve as dedicated courts anticipated to provide swift justice. They boast a higher clearance rate compared to regular courts and conduct speedy trials which augment the deterrence framework for sexual offenders. Despite these advantages, FTC performance has been inconsistent to date, with high pendency and low conviction rates, according to the National Crime Records Bureau.
Challenges Faced by FTCs
FTCs encounter several issues, including unclear mandates on cases, inadequate infrastructure, judicial delays, and overburdened judges. For instance, FTCs under the Nirbhaya Fund remain uncertain if all gender-based violence cases fall under their jurisdiction. Additionally, litigation culture in India encourages seeking adjournments, and frequently, the decision of a fast-track court is contested in the high court or the Supreme Court, resulting in further delay.
Towards Better Functioning of FTCs
To enhance the efficacy of FTCs, trials must conclude within specific timeframes. This objective necessitates a two-pronged approach that simultaneously improves human capacity and restructures processes. FTCs require dedicated judges for regular hearings and skilled staff such as stenographers and clerks to assist with evidence processing and notices. Clear mandates should also be established for FTCs, similar to the system in countries like Spain and Liberia.
