Why in news?

PM Modi has proposed setting up fast-track courts (FTCs) to try paper leak cases amid ongoing protests. This has renewed focus on whether such courts can genuinely deliver on their promise of speedy justice, given India's persistent judicial backlog.

What’s in Today’s Article?

• What Are Fast-Track Courts?
• Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs)
• Can a Special Court Be Set Up for a Single Case?
• Speed and Targets
• Why Delays Persist?

What Are Fast-Track Courts?

• FTCs are not governed by a single central legislation. Their origin lies in the recommendations of the Fourteenth Finance Commission (2015–2020), which proposed setting up 1,800 FTCs to expedite trials of:
  • Heinous crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and extortion
  • Property disputes pending for over five years
  • Cases involving vulnerable groups — women, children, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and those with terminal illnesses

Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs)

• In 2019, following a criminal law amendment and a Supreme Court directive, the Union government launched a centrally sponsored scheme for FTSCs.
• Partly funded through the Nirbhaya Fund, these courts are dedicated exclusively to time-bound trials of rape cases and offences under the POCSO Act.

Can a Special Court Be Set Up for a Single Case?

• Setting up special courts must satisfy Article 14 (equality before law).
• In State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court struck down a law allowing arbitrary selection of cases for special courts merely for "speedier trial," holding that speed alone is too vague a justification.
• Any classification for fast-tracking must rest on a rational, objective basis — such as the nature of the offence or victim vulnerability.
• Precedents of case-specific special courts
  • Andhra Pradesh High Court set up a special court in 2010 for the Satyam Computer Services scam.
  • The Supreme Court directed a dedicated special court for the 2G spectrum allocation scam (notified March 2011, Patiala House Courts).
  • It remains to be seen whether the NEET paper leak case, currently before a Delhi court, will similarly be referred to a special court.

Speed and Targets

• Litigants have no automatic statutory right to a fixed trial deadline.
• The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) recommends trials be completed within two years generally, and within two months for sexual offences.
• Each FTSC is expected to dispose of 41–42 cases per quarter, translating to at least 165 cases annually.

Performance So Far

• As of January 2026: 862 regular FTCs functioning across 21 states/UTs, alongside 774 FTSCs (including 398 exclusive POCSO courts) across 29 states/UTs.
• FTSC disposal rate stands at around 96%.
• In 2024, 88,902 new cases were filed in FTSCs while 85,595 were resolved.
• An FTSC disposes of about 9.5 cases per month — nearly three times the 3.3 cases cleared monthly by a regular trial court of similar jurisdiction.
• Despite high clearance rates, pendency remains significant: over 2.4 lakh cases were pending in FTSCs by end-2023.

Why Delays Persist

• The Ministry of Law and Justice, in a March 2026 Lok Sabha response, attributed delays to multiple factors: infrastructure availability, case complexity, investigation quality, evidence nature, and cooperation among the bar, investigating agencies, forensic support, witnesses, and litigants.
• Legal experts note mixed efficacy across subject areas — FTCs handling POCSO and IPC cases face heavy case volumes and judge shortages, while those under the Prevention of Corruption Act show comparatively better outcomes.
• Judicial Position on Trial Timelines
  • In P. Rama Chandra Rao vs State of Karnataka (2002), a seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled it is "neither advisable nor judicially permissible" to prescribe a fixed outer limit for concluding criminal trials, holding that such rigid limitation would amount to impermissible judicial legislation.

Conclusion

Fast-track courts offer measurably faster case disposal than regular courts, but their success is constrained by infrastructure gaps, judge shortages, and rising case inflow. Without addressing these root causes, fast-tracking risks becoming a symbolic response to public pressure rather than a durable fix for India's justice delivery system.