Fast Track Special Court

Fast Track Special Court
 

News: The Union Cabinet has approved the continuation of 1023 Fast Track Special Court (FTSCs) including 389 exclusive POCSO Courts for two more years.

Background:

o Fast track courts (FTCs) were first recommended by the Eleventh Finance Commission in 2000 “to substantially bring down, if not eliminate, pendency in the district and subordinate courts over the next five years”. Following the Finance Commission’s report, Rs 502.90 crore was granted by the Centre to create 1,734 additional courts in different states for a period of five years.
o In 2011, the central government stopped funding fast-track courts. The decision was challenged in the Supreme Court (SC) in 2012, but the apex court said it was up to the states to continue or shut down these courts depending on their financial situation.
o Three states–Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Kerala–continued running these courts while Delhi, West Bengal, Himachal Pradesh and Karnataka had said they would continue till 2013.
o Following the December 2012 Gangrape and murder, the Union Government set up a ‘Nirbhaya Fund’, amended the Juvenile Justice Act and set up fast-track Mahila Courts. Some other states such as Uttar Pradesh, Jammu and Kashmir, Bihar etc. also set up FTCs for rape cases thereafter.
 

Fast Track Special Court Scheme:

o Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) are being setup as a part of the National Mission for Safety of Women (NMSW). The scheme was started in October 2019.
o Implemented by the Department of Justice of the Ministry of Law and Justice.
o It is a Centrally sponsored scheme for expeditious trial and disposal of pending cases of rape and offences against children under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act (POCSO), 2012.
o The decision on extension of the scheme beyond one year will depend on the recommendations in the external evaluation.
o The scheme does not intend to create any permanent infrastructure. The courts will be made functional in suitable premises taken on lease or as decided by the States/UTs and respective High Courts.
o Each FTSC will have one Judicial Officer and seven staff members. States/UTs may engage judicial officers and court staff on contractual basis where sufficient manpower is not available. Services of retired judicial officers with relevant experience may also be engaged to dispose of cases in the FTSCs.
o Benefits of Fast Track Special Court include following
o Further the commitment of the Nation to champion the cause of safety and security of women and girl child.
o Reduce the number of pending cases of Rape & POCSO Act.
o Provide speedy access to justice to the victims of sexual crimes and act as a deterrent for sexual offenders.
o Fastracking of these cases will declog the judicial system of the burden of case pendency.
 

Issues:

o Fast-track courts operate no differently than regular courts. It is just like any other court hall in the district judiciary.
o There are no changes in the legal process to enable the cases to move forward faster. There is no element of process engineering except where it is just fixed as an ad hoc thing (for instance, for high-profile cases), because there is simply no supporting infrastructure to ensure that the timeline is met.
o There are no clear mandates on what kind of cases fast-track courts are supposed to hear.
o The fast-track courts set up under the Nirbhaya Fund, for instance, were not clear whether all cases of gender-based violence such as ‘eve-teasing’ (street harassment) or domestic violence came under their purview.
o Delay due to absence of witnesses was seen as one of the main reasons for adjournments, showed a study.
o Another cause for delays is adjournments sought by lawyers.
o Litigation culture in India encourages seeking adjournments; in fact, clients come to lawyers to delay the cases. Delays can also be caused because many times the decision of a fast-track court is challenged in the high court or the Supreme Court.
o Less number of Judicial Officials. As of February, 2020, around 21% of the sanctioned strength (24,018) of judicial officers in subordinate courts was vacant in different states; of the 5,146 vacancies, a large number of seats were vacant in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Gujarat.
o They are more or less judges from sessions courts who are given the extra responsibility of fast-track courts.