Open Access Research Article
FAST TRACK COURTS IN INDIA
Published Paper
Article Details
FAST TRACK COURTS IN INDIA
Authored By - K. S. Mohamed Arshadh
Law student currently pursuing III
Year BA.LLB(Hons)
at School Of Excellence In Law of
Tamilnadu Dr Ambedkar law university, Chennai.
ABSTRACT
Fast Track Courts play a vital role
in India's legal landscape, offering hope to those seeking justice
Fast Track Courts were established
to address the issue of pending cases in India, with a focus on resolving rape
cases and crimes against children. These courts have distinct features that set
them apart from regular trial courts and play a vital role in the country's
legal system. By improving their efficiency, Fast Track Courts can provide
swift and equitable justice for the nation. In this article we discuss about
what is fast track courts, features of fast track courts, it's history, issues
regarding the fast track courts and suggestions to overcome the issues. I have
use the acronyms such as FTC, IPC and POCSO as Fast track courts, Indian penal
code and Protection of Children from Sexual Offences as respectively.
WHAT IS FAST TRACK COURTS?
Fast Track Courts (FTCs) are
specialized judicial bodies that were established based on the recommendations
of the 11th Finance Commission to address the issue of pending cases across the
country. These courts are designed to provide swift access to justice and have a
primary goal of reducing the backlog of cases in district and subordinate
courts. State governments, in consultation with their respective High Courts,
have been instrumental in setting up these courts.[1]
The primary focus of Fast Track
Courts has been to expedite the resolution of pending cases, particularly those
related to rape cases under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and crimes falling
under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. This
specialized approach is aimed at revolutionizing the legal landscape and
ensuring prompt justice for the victims.
Fast Track Courts come with distinct
features that differentiate them from regular trial courts. Unlike regular
trial courts, Fast Track Courts typically operate with a specific target or
deadline for disposing of a predetermined number of cases within a prescribed
time frame. They also streamline the process by ensuring that all witnesses in
a case are examined in a single trial, a feature not common in normal courts.
Furthermore, the jurisdiction of
Fast Track Courts is often more limited, focusing on specific categories of
cases such as POCSO and sexual offenses. In contrast, regular courts have a
broader jurisdiction encompassing civil and criminal matters. Fast Track Courts
are known for their efficiency in issuing summons and warrants, and they tend to
avoid the common practice of postponing hearings or allowing frequent
adjournments, which can contribute to delays in regular session courts.
In essence, Fast Track Courts have
been instrumental in expediting the legal process, alleviating the burden on
regular courts, and addressing the backlog of cases, particularly in matters
concerning the most vulnerable members of society, such as victims of sexual
offenses. Their establishment represents a significant step toward ensuring
swift and effective dispensation of justice.
FEATURES OF FAST TRACK COURTS
The primary goal of fast track
courts is to accelerate the conviction process, alleviate the burden on
traditional courts, and reduce case backlogs. Fast track courts exhibit
distinct characteristics when compared to regular trial courts:
1. Time Targets: Fast track courts
are guided by specific time targets for disposing of cases, a feature absent in
regular trial courts.
2. Single-Trial Examination: Fast
track courts are designed to have all witnesses in a case examined during a
single trial, a practice not common in regular courts where witness
examinations can be more fragmented.
3. Specialized Jurisdiction: Fast
track courts typically handle cases related to POCSO and sexual offenses,
offering a more specialized focus, whereas regular courts have a broader
jurisdiction encompassing both civil and criminal matters.
4. Expedited Summons and Warrants:
The issuance of summons and warrants is generally faster in fast track courts,
contributing to expeditious proceedings.
5. No Adjournments: Unlike session
courts where postponements and adjournments are commonplace, fast track courts
prioritize the avoidance of such delays, maintaining an efficient pace in the
legal process.[2]
BRIEF HISTORY OF FAST TRACK COURTS
The Fast Track Courts were
originally established by the Central Government to expedite the resolution of
long-pending cases, particularly those in sessions courts, across various
subject matters. This initiative was funded through a grant from the 11th
Finance Commission (2000-2005). Under this scheme, a total of 1,734 Fast Track
Courts were set up nationwide. The grant period ended in 2005, but it was
extended by the 12th Finance Commission, supporting 1,562 existing Fast Track
Courts for an additional five years, until 2010.
During the 2000s, Fast Track Courts
gained significant popularity. The Law Commission of India made recommendations
for various types of Fast Track mechanisms. For instance, in 2003, the 188th
report of the Law Commission suggested the establishment of a permanent
fast-track commercial division in each High Court to handle high-value
commercial disputes. In 2008, the Law Commission reiterated the need for Fast
Track Courts, primarily as an ad-hoc measure to clear backlogs rather than a
permanent feature.
However, when the Central Government
decided to discontinue its funding for Fast Track Courts, this decision was
challenged in the Supreme Court in 2012 in the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union
Of India & Ors. The Supreme Court, in this case, declined to strike down
the decision but issued directions to improve the justice delivery system. It
emphasized the constitutional mandate for fair and expeditious trials and
instructed the States and Central Government to create additional judicial
posts within three months.
Regarding Fast Track Courts, the
Court allowed States to decide whether to continue or discontinue the scheme,
but not on an ad-hoc basis. The Central Government's position was that States
could continue the scheme if they could fully fund these courts themselves.
Despite the discontinuation of Central Government funding, some Fast Track
Courts, particularly those dealing with sessions court cases, continued to
operate in several states, including Karnataka.
In December 2012, the 'Nirbhaya'
sexual assault case led to a nationwide reevaluation of violence against women
and the challenges survivors faced within the criminal justice system. The
Justice J.S. Verma-led committee conducted a comprehensive review of the legal
system, resulting in the 'Report on Amendments to Criminal Law' published in
January 2013. The report emphasized the importance of speedy justice to
legitimize the legal framework and act as an effective deterrent to crime. It
also stressed the significance of how courts treated complainants, evidence,
and medical findings and called for judges and prosecutors to be sensitized to
the issues.
Following the Verma Committee's
recommendations and public support for speedy justice, states were encouraged
to establish Fast Track Courts specifically for cases of sexual assault,
utilizing the additional judges appointed as per the Supreme Court's decision
in the Brij Mohan Lal case. These courts were seen as a crucial response to the
need for expeditious and sensitive handling of cases related to sexual assault.
In summary, the Fast Track Courts
initiative, initially funded by the Central Government, aimed to resolve
long-pending cases swiftly. While the funding was discontinued, the focus on
expedited justice continued, particularly in cases of sexual assault, as
highlighted by the Verma Committee's recommendations. This approach underlines
the importance of efficiency and sensitivity within the legal system to address
backlogs and ensure justice for all.[3]
The
Impact of Fast Track Courts on the Indian Judicial System
The introduction of FTCs has had a
significant impact on the Indian judicial system. These courts have played a
crucial role in reducing the backlog of pending cases and expediting the trial
process. The speedy disposal of cases has notonly instilled confidence in the
judiciary but has also provided relief to victims and their families who have
been waitingfor justice for extended periods.
The numerical data pertaining to the
performance of FTCs in India further highlights their impact. According to
theNational Judicial Data Grid, as of March 2021, FTCs have disposed of over
6.5 lakh cases across the country. This remarkable figure showcases the
effectiveness of these courts in addressing the backlog and ensuring timely
justice delivery.
Furthermore, the impact of FTCs can
be seen in the decline of pending cases over the years. As per the data
provided by the Law Ministry, the number of pending cases in FTCs reduced from
2.3 lakh in 2014 to 1.1 lakh in 2020. This significant decrease reflects the
success of these courts in expediting the trial process and reducing the burden
on the judiciary.[4]
ISSUES REGARDING FAST TRACK COURTS
Fast track courts in India face a
multitude of challenges that significantly impact their effectiveness in
delivering swift justice. These challenges encompass issues related to resource
constraints, case backlogs, funding, inconsistent implementation, bureaucratic
hurdles, lack of specialization, interference and pressure, witness protection,
legal aid and awareness, and technology infrastructure.
Resource
Constraints:
Resource constraints pose a
significant hurdle for fast track courts. The shortage of judicial officers and
support staff, including judges, stenographers, clerks, and essential
personnel, leads to delays and administrative difficulties. Additionally, a
lack of courtrooms and proper infrastructure results in congestion and
logistical challenges. These constraints stem from the temporary and ad-hoc
nature of many fast track court appointments, making it difficult to maintain a
consistent and adequate pool of personnel. Limited funding and budget
allocation also hinder recruitment and infrastructure development. To address
this, systematic recruitment and clear mechanisms for timely appointments,
along with adequate infrastructure, are essential. Consistent funding and
budget allocation must be ensured for a robust and resourceful judiciary.
Backlog
of Cases:
The massive backlog of cases in
India presents a multifaceted challenge for fast track courts. While designed
to expedite case resolutions, they face the daunting task of addressing a
backlog accumulated over several years. The sheer volume and diversity of
pending cases, spanning civil and criminal matters, present a complex issue.
Striking a balance between addressing older cases and ensuring timely
resolution for new cases is pivotal. Efficient case management, prioritization,
and resource allocation are necessary. Case management systems, court
automation, and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms can help address the
backlog.
Funding
Issues:
Funding remains a critical issue for
fast track courts, typically funded by the government. Inconsistent funding can
disrupt operations, affecting the appointment of judges, support staff, and
court infrastructure maintenance. To address this, a stable and predictable
funding mechanism is required. A sustained commitment from the government is
necessary to allocate adequate resources for the continuous operation of these
courts. A well-defined funding structure can also support the expansion of fast
track courts to underserved areas.[5]
Inconsistent
Implementation:
Inconsistent implementation of fast
track courts across different states and regions poses a challenge to uniform
justice delivery. Variations in commitment, resource allocation, and workload
can impact their performance. Standardization and guidelines are needed to
ensure the consistent implementation and functioning of fast track courts.
Sharing best practices and models among states, as well as regular monitoring
and evaluation, can help improve their consistency.
Bureaucratic
Hurdles:
Bureaucratic hurdles can hinder the
smooth operation of fast track courts. Administrative red tape, delays in
approvals, and excessive paperwork can slow down the establishment and
functioning of these courts. Streamlining administrative procedures, reducing
unnecessary paperwork, and expediting approvals are critical to mitigate these
bureaucratic challenges.
Lack
of Specialization:
Fast track courts may lack
specialization to handle certain complex cases effectively. Judges may not be
adequately trained or experienced in specialized areas of law, which can result
in suboptimal outcomes. Specialized training programs for judges can enhance
their ability to handle a broader spectrum.
Interference
and Pressure:
Interference in the functioning of
fast track courts, often from political influence or external pressure, can
undermine their autonomy and integrity. Safeguards are required to insulate
these courts from external influences, ensuring they remain impartial and fair
in their judgments.
Witness
Protection:
Ensuring the safety and protection
of witnesses, particularly in cases involving influential or dangerous
individuals or organizations, is a significant challenge. Effective witness
protection programs need to be strengthened and standardized to instill
confidence in witnesses and encourage their participation in legal proceedings.
Legal
Aid and Awareness:
Many litigants, especially from
marginalized sections of society, lack access to legal aid and awareness. This
lack of legal knowledge can lead to ineffective presentation of cases. Efforts
are needed to enhance legal awareness and provide legal aid to those in need.
Technology
Infrastructure:
In an era where technology plays a
pivotal role in modern legal proceedings, the adequacy of technology
infrastructure is crucial. Outdated or inadequate technology infrastructure
hinders the use of digital records, case management systems, and video
conferencing facilities, limiting the courts' ability to leverage technological
advancements.[6]
In conclusion, addressing these
challenges requires a multi-faceted approach, involving systematic recruitment,
streamlined administrative processes, consistent funding, standardized implementation,
specialization and training, safeguarding judicial independence, robust witness
protection, legal awareness programs, and upgraded technology infrastructure.
Overcoming these obstacles is essential to ensure that fast track courts
fulfill their mission of expediting justice and delivering fair verdicts.
Suggestions
for improving the efficiency of Fast track courts To enhance the efficiency of Fast
Track Courts (FTCs), several key recommendations can be implemented:
1.
Efficient Case Management:
Implement streamlined case management systems with clear targets for case
disposal.
2.
Specialization and Training:Provide specialized training for judges and support staff,
aligning their expertise with specific case types.
3.
Digital Transformation:
Invest in technology infrastructure for digital record-keeping, case
management, and e-filing to reduce administrative burdens.
4. Predictable Funding:Ensure consistent and predictable funding for
FTCs to maintain smooth operations.
5.
Standardization:Develop
uniform guidelines and best practices for FTC implementation, promoting
consistency among states.
6.
Reducing Bureaucratic Hurdles: Simplify administrative processes to expedite the
establishment and functioning of FTCs.
.7
Witness Protection:
Strengthen and standardize witness protection programs to encourage witness
participation without fear.
8. Legal Aid and Awareness:Conduct legal awareness campaigns and
ensure access to legal aid for marginalized sections.
9.
Zero Tolerance for Interference: Establish safeguards against external influence and
mechanisms to report interference.
10.
Regular Evaluation:Continuously
evaluate FTC performance and seek feedback for improvements.
11.
Public Awareness Campaigns:
Inform the public about the role of FTCs in delivering swift justice,
particularly for cases like sexual offenses.
12.
Alternative Dispute Resolution: Utilize mediation and arbitration to resolve certain cases
outside FTCs, reducing their caseload.
13.
Strengthened Legal Aid:Increase
the availability of legal aid clinics and professionals to support litigants.
14.
Judicial Independence:
Ensure safeguards to protect the independence and impartiality of FTC judges.
15. Public Accountability:Maintain transparency in FTC operations,
providing accessible information on case progress and judgments.
Implementing these recommendations
will significantly boost the efficiency of FTCs, aiding their vital role in
delivering swift and equitable justice.
CONCLUSION
Fast Track Courts (FTCs) in India
are instrumental in expediting justice and tackling the backlog of long-pending
cases, particularly in matters of heinous crimes and sexual offenses. These
specialized courts provide swift access to justice, yet they face various
challenges.
Resource constraints, case backlogs,
funding issues, inconsistent implementation, bureaucratic hurdles, lack of
specialization, interference, witness protection, legal aid gaps, and
technology deficiencies pose hurdles to FTCs' efficiency. To enhance their
effectiveness, streamlined case management, specialized training, technology
investments, consistent funding, standardized implementation, reduced
bureaucracy, strengthened witness protection, legal awareness campaigns, and
safeguarding judicial independence are essential.
Despite these challenges, FTCs play
a vital role in India's legal landscape, offering hope to those seeking
justice. Overcoming these obstacles and continually improving their efficiency
will allow FTCs to serve as a beacon of swift and equitable justice for the
nation.
REFERENCES
5.No.17/RN/Ref./July/2015
Article Information
FAST TRACK COURTS IN INDIA
Authors: K. S. Mohamed Arshadh
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2023/10/20
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.