“FAST TRACK COURTS: ARE THEY THE ANSWER IN REDUCING PENDENCY OF THE CASES IN INDIA?”

Author: Swaroop, a student at Law College Dehradun, Uttaranchal University

“A sense of confidence in the courts is essential to maintain the fabric of ordered liberty for a free people and it is for the subordinate judiciary by its action and the High Court by its appropriate control to ensure it.”1

ABSTRACT:

Given the significant backlogs and delays in India’s judicial system, this research paper examines Fast Track Courts (FTCs) as a potential solution to address these inefficiencies. Established in 2000 following a recommendation by the Eleventh Finance Commission, FTCs were designed to expedite case resolution and alleviate the burden on district and subordinate courts. This study adopts a systematic approach to analyze the formulation, functioning, and procedural aspects of FTCs, along with their impact on reducing case backlogs and improving average disposal times.

The paper also identifies critical challenges faced by FTCs, such as inadequate infrastructure, insufficient funding, and delays in judicial appointments. Additionally, it evaluates the key achievements and limitations of FTCs in enhancing the effectiveness of the legal framework. The findings underscore the need for continual reforms, improved judicial training, and better management practices to optimize the efficiency of FTCs, while safeguarding the principles of due process and fair trials.

Finally, the study offers a multi-dimensional set of recommendations to enhance the performance of FTCs, ensuring they serve as effective instruments for delivering timely justice in India.

INTRODUCTION:

Fast-track courts, also known as Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs) or simply Fast Track Courts (FTCs), are designed to handle cases at a faster pace than the standard judicial system. They focus on serious crimes or long-standing issues to expedite resolution. The goal is to alleviate case backlogs and ensure quicker delivery of justice.

Fast Track Courts were established in India in 2001 to tackle the backlog of pending sessions cases and improve conditions for undertrial prisoners, many of whom remained incarcerated for years,

often longer than the maximum sentences they could receive. These courts aimed to hold hearings on a daily basis to speed up the judicial process.

Initially funded by the Central government, this support ceased in 2011, placing the responsibility for setting up and operating these courts on the State governments, with oversight from the High Courts. As a result, the number of Fast Track Courts has declined due to financial issues, even though they have been effective in resolving cases. This situation underscores ongoing challenges within the Indian judicial system, particularly regarding the timely handling of cases and the rights of undertrial prisoners.

HISTORY OF FAST TRACK COURTS:

Fast-track courts were initially proposed by the 11th Finance Commission to address the backlog of long-standing litigation in the Indian judicial system. They were first established in 2000 for a five-year period.

In the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India2, the Supreme Court recognized the impending expiration of these courts and recommended that they not be abruptly disbanded, urging the government to continue them. As a result, the government extended their operation for an additional five years. Over time, the scope of fast-track courts in various states broadened to include cases of sexual assault against women and children, following directives from state governments. As of the latest reports, more than 24 states and union territories have agreed to participate in the central government’s initiative to establish fast-track courts specifically for handling sexual assault and POCSO cases. When the Central Government decided to halt funding for fast track courts, this decision was challenged in the case of Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India. The Supreme Court ruled against the Union’s decision to stop funding the fast track court scheme beyond March 31, 2011.

Additionally, the Supreme Court has made several rulings aimed at enhancing the justice delivery system and streamlining the trial process in regular courts, thereby strengthening judicial independence. The Court highlighted the “constitutional mandate to ensure fair and timely trials for all litigants and citizens” and directed both the State and Central Governments to establish additional judicial positions within three months of the judgment.

1 Burger, C.J of the American Supreme Court

2 Brij Mohan Lal v. Union of India

ADVANTAGES OF FAST TRACK COURTS:

  1. Alleviate the Judicial Backlog:

Fast-track courts, at least in theory, can help clear the backlog in the Indian judicial system. India’s judiciary is infamous for its slow case resolution, with hundreds of thousands of cases still outstanding—some dating back many years. Fast-track courts are designed to accelerate this process.

However, the effectiveness of fast-track courts has been hindered by limited resources, inefficient investigations, and insufficient judicial staff. Demand for these courts often spikes following high-profile cases, like the tragic rape and murder of a doctor in Kolkata, but the systemic issues are frequently ignored. This decline reflects the challenges States face in maintaining these courts due to financial constraints, even though the Union government provides some support. Ultimately, the responsibility for operating fast track courts rests with the States, many of which struggle to allocate the needed resources.

  1. Ensure Justice for Undertrials:

In India, undertrials, individuals who are arrested or detained while awaiting their trial can spend years before their cases are heard. Fast-track courts help speed up this process, providing trial dates to undertrials more promptly.

In a significant relief for undertrial prisoners and first-time offenders, the Supreme Court has declared that Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS)3 will be applied retrospectively nationwide. This section allows first-time offenders who have served one- third of the maximum imprisonment period as undertrials to be eligible for bail.

This decision was made during the Court’s consideration of a petition addressing the issue of overcrowded prisons.

  1. Ensure Justice for Victims:

Most importantly, fast-track special courts play a crucial role in delivering justice and providing closure for victims and their families. In India, even in cases of sexual crimes, proceedings can drag on for years, forcing victims to live with the ongoing fear of encountering their abuser.

3 Section 479 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS

DISADVANTAGES OF FAST TRACK COURTS:

  1. Logistical Challenges:

Fast-track courts in India encounter numerous logistical challenges that hinder their effectiveness. A survey conducted by a national law school revealed significant technological deficiencies, which obstruct the courts’ ability to hear from victims efficiently. It also highlighted a shortage of staff and judges, which seriously threatens the core purpose of these courts.

Many fast-track courts lack essential technological tools, making it difficult to communicate with victims and manage cases properly. The combined issues of insufficient personnel, inadequate judicial capacity, limited funding, poor infrastructure, and coordination problems are all contributing factors that prevent these courts from delivering timely justice in India.

  1. Issues with Case Prioritization:

A key challenge facing Fast Track Courts (FTCs) is deciding which cases should be prioritized for expedited processing. This decision is often influenced by political factors and public sentiment. For instance, following the Nirbhaya case, public emotions played a significant role in determining which cases were fast-tracked.

As a result, case prioritization can sometimes be shaped more by political pressures and public outcry than by objective criteria. High-profile cases often receive immediate attention due to widespread attention, while other equally important cases may be overlooked or delayed.

  1. The Dangers of Rushed Justice:

While the adage “Justice delayed is justice denied” underscores the importance of timely resolutions, courts must also exercise caution to avoid making hasty decisions that could lead to grave repercussions. In sensitive cases such as rape, a swift ruling from a fast-track court can result in significant harm if the decision is flawed.

While the saying “Justice delayed is justice denied” is often valid, courts must also be cautious not to hastily reach decisions that could lead to serious consequences if they are wrong. In particular, in cases of rape, a fast-track court’s erroneous ruling can have devastating implications.

SOME SIGNIFICANT CASES OF FAST TRACK COURTS:

  1. Best Bakery Case

This case highlights the serious consequences of fast-tracking a trial without adhering to proper procedures and evidence handling. In 2002, during the post-Godhra riots in Gujarat, 14 people were burned alive in a bakery in Vadodara. The case was heard in Fast Track Court No. 1 in Baroda, which, amidst allegations of procedural errors, acquitted 21 accused individuals after a brief 44-day trial.

The court attributed its ruling to inadequate police investigations and the retraction of witness statements. Although the High Court upheld this decision, a retrial was eventually ordered only after the National Human Rights Commission intervened and filed a petition with the Supreme Court. This case serves as a warning about the dangers of expedited justice when due process is not properly followed.

  1. Jessica Lal Murder Case

In 1999, model and part-time waitress Jessica Lal was shot and killed at a party in South Delhi. While the investigation should have been straightforward, it was complicated by the fact that the accused was the son of a powerful politician. During the trial, three key eyewitnesses retracted their earlier statements to the police, and twenty-nine less critical witnesses did the same. One key eyewitness, Shyam Munshi, altered his testimony so significantly that his revised statement was ultimately used as evidence by the defence.

In February 2006, Sharma and the other defendants were acquitted, leading to public outrage and petitions to the President and Prime Minister. The High Court quickly took up the appeal, hearing the case with minimal adjournments. While not officially fast-tracked, many media outlets reported it as such due to the circumstances. This case highlights that any court in India can operate as a fast track court, indicating that creating special courts for controversial cases might simply be a superficial response to public discontent.

  1. 26/11 Mumbai attack case

On November 26, 2008, Ajmal Kasab and nine other gunmen launched attacks in various locations across Mumbai, resulting in the deaths of 166 people. There was a wealth of evidence against him, including CCTV footage of him armed at the CST station, his confession, survivor testimonies, and a DNA match with items from the hijacked vessel. He

underwent a fair trial that adhered to judicial procedures, although it took time to reach a verdict.

RECOMMENDATIONS AND SOLUTIONS:

Amid the growing demand for more fast track courts, comprehensive reforms in the system are crucial to uphold the integrity of these courts in India and protect the interests of vulnerable litigants.

  1. Special Legislation:

A major challenge with fast track courts in India is the absence of dedicated legislation. These courts have mainly been set up in response to political pressure on a temporary basis, leading to the lack of proper frameworks necessary for their efficient functioning. In the absence of standardized processes, these courts often operate similarly to conventional courts.

  1. Training:

Judicial officials, lawyers, and registrars should receive specialized training, and the legislation should include provisions for such education and skill development.

  1. Periodic Monitoring:

Fast track courts should undergo regular assessments to evaluate their efficiency. The legislation should incorporate a data collection strategy to monitor and assess the performance of these courts.

  1. Judges’ Selection Process:

The Supreme Court has repeatedly emphasized that judges appointed to fast track courts often lack credibility. Therefore, strict adherence to the guidelines issued by the Court is essential. Additionally, former fast track court judges should receive incentives and benefits similar to those provided to other retired judicial officers.

  1. Public Awareness Campaigns:

Implement campaigns to raise public awareness about the functions and benefits of fast track courts, encouraging more individuals to utilise these resources effectively.

  1. Inter-agency Coordination:

Foster collaboration between law enforcement, execution, and social services to improve the overall running of cases, ensuring that evidence is collected efficiently and that victims admits necessary support.

CONCLUSION:

Fast-track courts are specialized tribunals designed to speed up the legal process and ensure prompt delivery of justice.They are designated for serious crimes, such as rape, murder, and terrorism, as well as cases of significant public interest, like corruption and fraud. Their main aim is to reduce the backlog of unresolved cases and improve the efficiency of the legal system. Fast- track courts help prevent further criminal activity and provide victims and their families with quicker justice.

While these courts can be effective in addressing judicial delays, they also pose challenges and risks to human rights and the rule of law. Therefore, they should be implemented with caution and only in circumstances where a swift trial is genuinely needed. Fast-track courts are intended to complement regular courts, not replace them. The ultimate goal should be to ensure adequate infrastructure, staffing, funding, and reforms to enhance the overall performance of the judicial system. Additionally, legislation should establish a distinct procedural framework for fast-track trials, as the overlap with procedures in regular courts undermines the very objectives for which fast-track courts were created.

Key FAQs about Fast Track Courts:

  1. What is the purpose of Fast Track Courts?

Fast Track Courts are established to reduce the backlog of cases in the judiciary by providing a specialised platform for the expedited trial of serious and sensitive cases, particularly those concerning the safety of women and children.

  1. Who is responsible for establishing Fast Track Courts?

The establishment and management of Fast Track Courts are overseen by State Governments in consultation with their respective High Courts.

  1. What types of cases are dealt with by Fast Track Courts?

Fast Track Courts generally handle cases related to rape, sexual assault, child abuse, crimes against elderly individuals, and long-delayed property disputes.

  1. What challenges do Fast Track Courts face?
  • Overburdened Judges: Heavy caseloads can result in delays, despite the intent for speedy trials.
  • Infrastructure Deficiencies: Inadequate courtrooms, technology, and support staff affect their efficiency.
  1. How are judges appointed to Fast Track Courts?

Judges for Fast Track Courts are generally selected from the existing pool of subordinate judiciary judges, based on their experience and availability.

  1. What are some recent initiatives involving Fast Track Courts?

The government has introduced Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) to accelerate the legal proceedings of cases filed under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *