Fast Track Courts

Practise Questions

 Syllabus – Topic Structure, organization and functioning of the Executive and the
Judiciary – Sub-Topic=Judicial Reforms, Criminal Justice System
 Meaning
 Need
 Features
 Advantages
 Disadvantages
 Conclusion
 Imp Terms & Concepts

Introduction
 Speedy justice is a component of social justice .
 Speedy trial means as it encompass within its sweep all its stages including investigation,
inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and re-trial in short everything commencing with an
accusation and expiring with the final verdict.
 Right to speedy trial is the essence of criminal justice and there is no doubt that justice
delayed is justice denied.
 Though right to speedy trial is not specifically enumerated as fundamental right in
Constitution of India, it is implicit in the broad sweep of Article 21(ii). The procedure
cannot be fair unless it ensures speedy trial for determination of the guilt of the
accused. There can be, hence, no doubt that speedy trial (reasonably expeditious trial) is
an integral and essential part of the fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in
Article 21(iii). (not - The right to free legal aid and speedy trial are implicit in Art.21 of
the constitution of India.)
 For the same purpose and to achieve the aim of speedy justice, judiciary has also come
up with the concept of Fast Track Courts.
 This is a noble concept which is introduced for the speedy disposal of vast number of
pending cases in the various courts throughout India.
 The preamble of the Constitution enjoins the state to secure social, economic and
political justice to all its citizens
 The Directive Principles of State Policy declare that the state should strive for a social
order in which such justice shall inform all the institutions of national life {(Art 38 (1)}.
This is elaborated by specifically adding that “The State shall secure that the operation
of the legal system promotes justice..; to ensure that opportunities for securing justice
are not denied to any citizen by reason of economic or other disabilities” (Art 39A).
While interpreting this provision the Supreme Court has held that “social justice would
include ‘legal justice’ which means that the system of administration of justice must
provide a cheap, expeditious and effective instrument for realization of justice by all
section of the people irrespective of their social or economic position or their financial
resources”.

Need
 According to estimates, more than 3 crore cases are pending across all the courts in the
country.
 As per the latest information given by the Ministry of Law and Justice, there are 43.2
lakh cases pending in the High Courts and 2.69 crore cases pending in the district courts.
 As a result of pendency, number of under-trials in prison is more than double that of
convicts
 Over the years, as a result of growing pendency of cases for long periods, the number of
undertrials (accused awaiting trial) in prisons has increased. Prisons are running at an
over-capacity of 114%. As of 2015, there were over four lakh prisoners in jails. Of
these, two-thirds were undertrials (2.8 lakh) and the remaining one-third were
convicts. The highest proportion of undertrials (where the number of inmates was at
least over 1,000) were in J&K (85%), followed by Bihar (82%). A total of 3,599
undertrials were detained in jails for more than five years. Uttar Pradesh had the
highest number of such undertrials (1,364) followed by West Bengal (294).


Meaning
 The FTCs were established to expeditiously dispose of long pending cases in the Sessions
Courts and long pending cases of undertrial prisoners.
 Essence - proceedings are expedited and often heard on a daily basis at fast-track courts
(not in regular courts )
 Examples - Some notable fast track cases- Best Bakery Case, Jessica Lal Murder Case,
26/11 Mumbai case


Features

 The Eleventh Finance Commission recommended a scheme for creation of 1734 Fast
Track Courts (FTCs) in the country for disposal of long pending Sessions and other cases.
 The Ministry of Finance sanctioned an amount of Rs.502.90 crores as“ special problem
and upgradation grant” for judicial administration.
 The scheme was for a period of 5 years. The Finance Commission Division
(FCD),Ministry of Finance released funds directly to the state Governments under the
scheme of Fast Track Courts.
 The Fast Track Courts (FTCs) were established in India in the year 2000 with an aim to
clear the long pending Sessions and other lower judicial cases.
 They were established for a limited period
 It is the primary responsibility of the State Governments to establish these courts in
consultation with the concerned High Courts.
 The 14th Finance Commission endorsed the proposal for setting up 1800 FTCs at a cost
of Rs.4144.00 crore.
 It also urged the State Governments to utilize the enhanced devolution of central taxes
from 32% to 42% to fund this effort.
 As on 31.12.2018, 699 FTCs are functional across the country dealing cases pertaining to
heinous crimes and cases related to women, children, senior citizens, disabled and
litigants affected with terminal ailments etc. and Civil natured Cases pertaining to
property disputes that are 5 years old.
 FTCs were to be established by the state governments in consultation with the
respective High Courts.
 An average of five FTCs were to be established in each district of the country.
 The judges for these FTCs were appointed on an adhoc basis. The judges were selected
by the High Courts of the respective states.
 Fast track courts (FTCs) have also been set up on the orders of various High Courts to
accelerate disposal of cases on matters ranging from sexual offences, anti-corruption,
riots, and cheque bouncing

Advantages

 As per the information received from the High Courts/State Governments, 32.34 lakh
cases have been disposed off by these courts, out of 38.90 lakh transferred to these
courts leaving 6.56 lakh cases pending for disposal.
 You can extend a degree of comfort on account of being a dedicated court," says a
judicial officer closely associated with fast-track courts. In these, a judge can ask a
person to leave the witness box and sit on a chair, which cannot be done in a regular
court packed with litigants and lawyers. Lower courts in Delhi, including those in Saket
and Karkardooma, have been using so-called “vulnerable witness" courtrooms where
the evidence of those who have been sexually assaulted is recorded.


Challenges
 To quote the Ministry of Law and Justice, at the end of March, there were 581 FTCs
operational in the country. However, 56% of the States and Union Territories, including
Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat, had no FTCs. So the decline of FTCs across the
country .
 Inadequate Finance
 several FTCs lacked technological resources to conduct audio and video recordings of
the victims and many of them did not have regular staff.
 Systemic issues: Hence, there are several other factors that have an impact on disposal
of cases. Inadequate staff and IT infrastructure, delay in getting reports from the
understaffed forensic science laboratories, frivolous adjournments and over-listing of
cases in the cause list are some of the variables. Identifying systemic issues and
addressing the concerns is as important for timely disposal of cases as increasing the
number of judges.
 Appointment of Judges: Furthermore, given the vacancies in subordinate courts across
the country, it also needs to be seen whether States will hire additional judges or
appoint FTCs from the current pool of judges. For instance, in the case of commercial
courts, several States designate special judges from the current pool of judges. Such a
move could prove to be problematic as it would increase substantially the workload of
the remaining judges.
 All said and done, the final responsibility of making sure that the entire exercise results
in a positive change vests with the States. For the FTCs to become successful, States will
need to take stock of the issues at the ground level. It is often noted that policies and
regulations are passed without keeping in view the ground realities. It is important that
States engage with the principal and senior district judges to get a sense of issues the
courts are facing in various districts
 While the original concept of fast-track courts envisaged the hiring of additional judges
and new infrastructure, including courtrooms, technological facilities and libraries, this
has not happened and fast-track courts now function with existing infrastructure and no
additional judges
 Moreover, while proceedings are expedited and often heard on a daily basis at fast-
track courts, litigants retain the right to appeal, and that means the usual procedural
delays in the higher courts where there is no separate fast-track lane. “Procedural law
remains the same," says S.S. Rathi, officer on special duty at the Delhi State Legal
Services Authority, a statutory body which provides free legal aid and awareness to
vulnerable litigants. “When fast-track courts were conceived, was any thought given to
fast-tracking investigation or providing a special procedure different from the routine
procedure? A holistic approach is missing."

Reforms
 FTCs at the level of additional district or session judge was being run on ad hoc or
temporary basis, and the Supreme Court in 2012 had directed that either they be
discontinued or made permanent. So to make fast-track courts (FTC) a permanent
feature by sanctioning more posts of judges and ancillary staff

Conclusion

Imp Terms & Concepts