Fast-track courts: When they can be established, where they lag

Why in the News

Indian Prime Minister assured to set up fast-track courts (FTCs) to try exam paper-leak cases, announced after protests by the Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) at Jantar Mantar. A draft Bill on paper leaks was taken to Cabinet on Friday, but existing fast-track courts show that speed depends on constitutional limits, infrastructure and investigation quality.

What are fast-track courts, and what legal basis funds them?

1. No single governing law: There is no central legislation that governs fast-track courts as a category.
2. 14th Finance Commission origin: The 14th Finance Commission (2015-2020) recommended FTCs to expedite trials of heinous crimes such as murder, kidnapping and property disputes pending over five years, and for cases involving vulnerable groups such as women and children.
3. 2019 fast-track special courts (FTSCs) scheme: In 2019, following a Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 and a Supreme Court directive, the Union Government launched a centrally sponsored scheme for fast-track special courts (FTSCs), funded partly by the Nirbhaya Fund, exclusively for rape cases and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012. (Nirbhaya Fund: Following the Nirbhaya case of 16th December, 2012, the Government has set up a dedicated fund , Nirbhaya Fund, which can be utilized for projects specifically designed to improve the safety and security of women. It is a non-lapsable corpus fund, being administered by Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance. The Ministry of Women and Child Development (M/o WCD) is the nodal Ministry to appraise/recommend proposals and Schemes to be funded under Nirbhaya Fund.)

Can a Special Court be created for a single case?

1. Article 14: Creation of special courts must satisfy the Right to Equality under Article 14.
2. Anwar Ali Sarkar precedent: In State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court struck down a law letting the government arbitrarily pick cases for special courts for the “object of speedier trial” alone, calling “speed” too vague a criterion.
3. Reasonable Classification: Cases assigned to special courts must be based on an objective and rational classification, such as the nature of the offence or vulnerability of victims.
4. A precedent for public-demand cases: The Supreme Court directed the Centre to establish a special court for the 2G case to ensure a day-to-day trial, even amid public demand.
5. NEET’s uncertain path: It remains to be seen whether the NEET case, being heard in a Delhi court, will be sent to a special court by the government or through a court order.

How quickly are Fast-Track Courts expected to dispose of cases?

1. No statutory deadline: There is no fixed legal time limit for completing trials.
2. Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) recommended timelines: Recommends completing criminal trials within two years and sexual offence trials within two months.
3. FTSC Performance Target: Each Fast-Track Special Court (FTSC) is expected to dispose of 41-42 cases per quarter or at least 165 cases annually.
4. No judicially prescribed outer limit: In P. Rama Chandra Rao vs State of Karnataka (2002), a seven-judge Constitution Bench ruled it is “neither advisable or feasible, nor judicially permissible” to prescribe an outer limit for concluding all criminal proceedings.

What do current Fast-Track Court statistics show?

1. Current strength: As of January, 862 regular FTCs were functioning across 21 states and Union Territories, alongside 774 FTSCs, including 398 exclusive POCSO courts, across 29 states and UTs.
2. Disposal rates: The disposal rate for special courts stands around 96%, with an FTSC disposing of about 9.5 cases a month compared with 3.3 cases by a regular trial court of similar jurisdiction.
3. Persistent pendency: More than 2.4 lakh cases remained pending in FTSCs by the end of 2023.
4. Government’s own explanation: A 2026 Lok Sabha reply from the Ministry of Law and Justice attributed disposal delays to factors including physical infrastructure availability, quality of investigation, and cooperation of the bar, investigation agencies and forensic support.

Will Fast-Track Courts solve the paper leak problem?

1. Poor Conviction Record: Out of 45 major exam paper leaks (2002-2025) involving at least one lakh candidates, only two cases resulted in convictions.
2. Investigation is the Real Bottleneck: Weak investigations and the absence of stringent bail provisions remain the major challenges.
3. Limited Impact: Experts argue that FTCs alone cannot solve issues such as judicial vacancies, heavy case pendency, and procedural delays.
4. Mixed Performance: FTSCs have shown limited success in POCSO and Indian Penal Code (IPC) cases because of heavy caseloads, while performing relatively better in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Conclusion

Fast-track courts can expedite trials only within the constitutional limits set in Anwar Ali Sarkar case(1952) and cases must rest on a rational classification, not speed or public demand alone. Even then, the FTSC record shows disposal depends on infrastructure and investigative quality that a court’s “fast-track” label does not create. With 2.4 lakh cases still pending in FTSCs and only two convictions among 45 major exam leaks since 2002, the paper-leak Bill will resolve little unless it also addresses investigation quality and bail conditions.

PYQ Relevance

[UPSC 2024] What are the aims and objects of the recently passed and enforced, The Public Examination (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024? Whether University/State Education Board examinations, too, are covered under the Act?

Linkage: The PYQ examines the legal and institutional framework for ensuring the integrity of public examinations. The article builds directly on this theme by evaluating whether fast-track courts can effectively enforce accountability under the proposed paper-leak framework.