Following the brutal rape and murder of a young physiotherapy student in Delhi in December 2012, six fast-track courts were set up in Delhi to try cases pertaining to sexual offences. It was not the first time fast-track courts have been set up to expedite trials. In early 2000, the Central Government set up the Fast-Track Court scheme to expedite trials of long-pending cases across different case types. After the scheme expired in 2011, some states chose to let fast-track courts continue functioning for faster disposal of cases. Fast-track courts have also been set up on the orders of various High Courts to accelerate disposal of cases on matters ranging from sexual offences, anti-corruption, riots, and cheque bouncing. 

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

While fast-track courts have been mooted as the solution for pendency time and again, there has been little analysis on the actual efficacy of the fast-track court mechanism. In fact, even basic data on fast-track courts can be hard to find: official court data at most breaks down disposal and pendency figures across different offences, but not across the different courts in which cases are heard. The little data that is available paints a sobering picture. IANS has reported that fast-track courts for sexual offences tried lesser cases in 2013 than regular courts in the past three years. In 2014, more than 1000 cases were still pending in these courts. Even the Delhi Commission for Women has identified pendency in fast-track courts as one of the four reasons for low conviction rates in cases for crimes against women. (132 of approximately 32000 cases result in convictions).

Several factors might explain why the the performance of fast-track courts has not been more encouraging. Chief among these is that the establishment of these courts has not been complemented with the creation of new infrastructure, or any relaxation of procedural requirements. In Delhi, fast-track courts typically have only one or two judges. They also do not have more sophisticated administrative or infrastructural support than regular courts. Moreover, they do not follow any special, speedier procedure for disposal of cases. Without addressing any of these structural deficiencies, a slew of fast-track courts has been set up over a period of time, often in addition to already existing courts on the same matters. For instance, Mahila Courts in Delhi, which were set up in the 2000s to provide justice to women, also try cases pertaining to sexual offences. 

Indeed, this points to a larger problem of ad-hocism with regard to the establishment of courts in the country. In his Budget Speech for 2017-18, the Union Finance Minister acknowledged that “the number of tribunals have multiplied with overlapping functions.” Moreover, a study done by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy found that more than 764 legislations provided for special courts to be set up between 1950-2015. However, the setting up of these courts was not based on actual problems of pendency, but was often in response to specific incidents such as securities scams. Moreover, these courts were not set up with different infrastructure or facilities, but were often housed in an existing court, limiting how much faster or more efficient they could be in disposing of cases. 

In this context, it becomes imperative that the government works towards rationalisation of judicial structures. In other jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and Canada, one agency is responsible for the administration of various judicial bodies, including tribunals. This ensures that different judicial authorities can be monitored centrally, that resources can be distributed among them proportionately, and that reforms can be implemented in a coordinated fashion. In India, in contrast, tribunals are managed by different ministries, and fast-track courts and special courts are administered under different judicial bodies, with little coordination or uniformity among them.

The time is ripe for a lead agency to be established by Central and State Governments to review the functioning of courts, gauge the need for improvements, and allocate adequate resources for their functioning in a systematic and streamlined manner. 

The authors are Research Fellows at Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy