HAVE FAST-TRACK COURTS DELIVERED ON THE PROMISE OF SPEEDY JUSTICE?

Why In News?

The government's promise of new Fast-Track Courts for paper leak cases sparked debate, as existing special courts already struggle with a massive backlog of over 2.49 lakh pending cases.

What are Fast-Track Courts (FTCs)?

Fast-Track Courts (FTCs) are special courts established to ensure the expeditious disposal of specific categories of cases, particularly those involving serious offences, vulnerable victims or long-pending matters.

FTCs primarily deal with cases relating to rape, sexual offences, crimes against women and children, POCSO cases, and other categories notified by the Government or High Courts. 

Evolution

• 2000: Fast-Track Courts were first introduced based on the recommendations of the 11th Finance Commission to dispose of long-pending sessions and district court cases. 

• 2011: The Centrally Sponsored Scheme ended, after which many States continued FTCs using their own resources.  

• 2019: The Government launched the Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC) Scheme for the expeditious disposal of rape and POCSO Act cases, with financial assistance shared between the Centre and States.  

• 2023–26: The FTSC Scheme has been extended to strengthen victim-centric justice and reduce pendency in sexual offence cases.  

What is the Constitutional Basis for Speedy Justice?

Fundamental Right: Article 21 guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which the Supreme Court has interpreted to include the Right to a Speedy Trial.

Fair Trial Principle: Unreasonable delay violates the constitutional guarantee of fair, just and reasonable procedure, causing psychological, social and financial hardship to victims as well as accused persons. 

Judicial Intervention 

• Hussainara Khatoon vs State of Bihar (1979): The Supreme Court recognised the Right to Speedy Trial as an integral part of Article 21, leading to the release of numerous undertrial prisoners.

• Abdul Rehman Antulay vs R.S. Nayak (1992): The Court laid down comprehensive principles for determining whether delays violate the constitutional right to a speedy trial.

• Brij Mohan Lal vs Union of India (2012): The Supreme Court issued guidelines regarding the continuation, staffing and funding of Fast-Track Courts while emphasising judicial independence and institutional sustainability.

• P. Ramachandra Rao vs State of Karnataka (2002): The Court held that while speedy trial is fundamental, rigid time limits for concluding criminal trials cannot ordinarily be prescribed.

Achievements of Fast-Track Courts 

Faster Disposal of Priority Cases

• High Case Disposal: As of April20256, 775 Fast Track Special Courts, including 398 exclusive POCSO Courts, had disposed of over 3.66 lakh cases relating to rape and POCSO offences. (Source: PIB)

• Improved Efficiency: The cumulative disposal rate of FTSCs has exceeded 96% of instituted cases over their operational period.  

Reduced Delay in Sensitive Cases

• Dedicated courts reduce waiting time for rape and child sexual abuse cases, enabling quicker investigation, prosecution and adjudication.

• Specialisation reduces the burden on regular courts and improves judicial efficiency.

Victim-Centric Justice

• Establishment of Child-Friendly Courts under the POCSO framework.

• Creation of Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDCs) allowing victims to record evidence in a safe environment without direct confrontation with the accused.  

• Greater use of video conferencing, in-camera proceedings and psychological support for survivors.

Greater Public Confidence

• Faster trials encourage victims to report offences and improve confidence in the criminal justice system.

• Dedicated courts contribute to reducing stigma associated with reporting sexual offences.

Institutional Strengthening

• Improved coordination among police, prosecution, forensic laboratories and judiciary through digital initiatives such as Inter-operable Criminal Justice System (ICJS) and e-Courts, supporting timely disposal of cases.

Why Have Fast-Track Courts Fallen Short of Expectations?

Rising Pendency

Instead of reducing delays, pendency in Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs) has continued to increase. During 2025, FTSCs received 1.43 lakh+ fresh cases but disposed of only 66,500 cases, taking the total pending cases to over 2.45 lakh. 

Judicial Vacancies

Nearly 21% of sanctioned posts in subordinate courts remain vacant, forcing High Courts to assign regular judges additional charge instead of appointing dedicated FTSC judges. This dilutes the objective of speedy justice.

Infrastructure Constraints

Many FTSCs continue to function without:

• Dedicated courtrooms

• Video-conferencing facilities

• Child-friendly waiting rooms

• Adequate stenographers, typists and clerical staff

• Separate record rooms and digital infrastructure

As a result, recording evidence, drafting orders and case management remain slow.

Procedural Delays

FTSCs cannot function independently because they rely on:

• Timely police investigations

• Filing of charge sheets

• DNA and forensic reports

• Witness appearance

• Medical evidence

Delays at any stage automatically postpone trial completion.  

Limited Coverage

The 60:40 Centre-State funding model discourages fiscally weaker states from participating fully. Jharkhand exited the FTSC Scheme in July 2025, highlighting sustainability concerns. 

Temporary Scheme-Based Framework

FTSCs operate under a Centrally Sponsored Scheme instead of a permanent statutory framework. Their continuation depends on periodic extensions and budget approvals, limiting long-term planning.  

Appeals Continue in Regular Courts

Although FTSCs speed up trial court proceedings, appeals still move through regular High Courts, where pendency delays final justice. Thus, fast trials do not necessarily translate into fast final outcomes.  

 

Measures To Strengthen Speedy Justice

Fill Judicial Vacancies  

The government should fill the 21% vacancy in subordinate courts through time-bound recruitment so that Fast-Track Courts have permanent judges instead of additional-charge arrangements.

Improve Court Infrastructure

States should establish dedicated court complexes with digital courtrooms, video-conferencing facilities, secure witness rooms, child-friendly infrastructure, and adequate support staff to reduce administrative delays. 

Strengthen Investigation and Prosecution

Police investigation should be modernized by expanding forensic laboratories, recruiting more forensic scientists, and increasing the number of dedicated public prosecutors to ensure timely filing of charge sheets and scientific evidence. 

Expand Technology-Enabled Justice

Accelerate implementation of e-Courts Phase III by adopting AI-based transcription, multilingual translation, e-filing, digital evidence management, electronic summons, and virtual hearings to reduce procedural delays.

Promote Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

Strengthen mediation, Lok Adalats, arbitration, and Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) so that minor civil disputes are resolved outside courts, reducing the burden on the regular judiciary. 

Strengthen Witness Protection

Implement the Witness Protection Scheme, 2018 effectively through identity protection, relocation support, and security measures to improve witness confidence and conviction rates.

Reduce Government Litigation

Implement the National Litigation Policy effectively to reduce unnecessary appeals, as governments remain among the largest litigants, contributing significantly to judicial pendency.  

Expand Gram Nyayalayas

Operationalize more Gram Nyayalayas under the Gram Nyayalayas Act, 2008 to provide accessible and speedy justice in rural areas while reducing the burden on district courts. 

Integrate the Criminal Justice System

Create a digital platform connecting police, forensic laboratories, prosecution, prisons, and courts to enable real-time sharing of FIRs, charge sheets, forensic reports, and court records.  

Strengthen Accountability

Conduct periodic independent audits of FTSCs based on disposal rates, pendency reduction, trial duration, and victim satisfaction to ensure outcome-based judicial reforms.  

Conclusion 

While Fast-Track Courts offer a vital framework for prioritized justice, realizing their true potential requires fixing root problems like severe judge shortages, weak police investigations, and outdated court infrastructure.

Source: THEHINDU