Fast-Track Court Implementation
Fast-Track Courts: Overview
Fast-Track Courts (FTCs) are special courts set up to expedite the disposal of cases, particularly in areas where there is a heavy backlog or where speedy justice is critical (e.g., sexual assault cases, crimes against women, juvenile cases). The idea is to reduce delays in the justice system by focusing on specific categories of cases and speeding up trials.
Key Objectives of Fast-Track Courts:
Reduce pendency of cases.
Deliver speedy justice.
Increase public confidence in the judicial process.
Handle sensitive cases (rape, child abuse) with special attention.
FTCs are often temporary and set up either by the government or under judicial directives, sometimes through special schemes like the “Victim Compensation Fund” or through amendments to criminal procedure laws.
Key Case Laws on Fast-Track Courts
1. Bachan Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) — On Speedy Trial
While not directly about Fast-Track Courts, this Supreme Court case emphasized the right to a speedy trial as a fundamental principle of criminal justice.
Facts:
The case dealt with the constitutionality of the death penalty but discussed the importance of timely justice.
Legal Significance:
The Court observed that delays in trial undermine justice and the accused’s right.
It laid down the principle that undue delay is a ground for acquittal.
The ruling indirectly supports the need for fast-track mechanisms to ensure speedy justice.
2. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India (1995)
Facts:
This case arose from public interest litigation regarding the poor handling of rape cases and the slow pace of justice.
Legal Significance:
The Supreme Court directed the establishment of special fast-track courts to deal exclusively with rape and sexual assault cases.
Highlighted the importance of speedy and sensitive trial procedures.
Led to widespread implementation of FTCs across India focusing on crimes against women.
3. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) — Abuse of Process
Facts:
Though not directly about FTCs, this case dealt with protecting accused persons from malicious prosecution and unnecessary delays.
Legal Significance:
The Court underscored the importance of speedy investigation and trial to protect the accused’s rights.
This case reinforced the concept that justice delayed is justice denied, prompting courts and governments to explore expedited trials through fast-track courts.
4. Common Cause v. Union of India (2018)
Facts:
This Public Interest Litigation (PIL) sought better implementation of fast-track courts and improved infrastructure for speedy justice.
Legal Significance:
The Supreme Court mandated increased funding and better monitoring of FTCs.
Directed the setting up of fast-track courts in all districts to deal with cases involving atrocities against Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST).
Emphasized accountability and performance review of FTCs to avoid misuse or ineffective functioning.
5. Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) — Speedy Trial and Victim Compensation
Facts:
Following the Nirbhaya gang-rape case, the Supreme Court addressed the need for quick disposal of cases involving sexual violence and adequate victim compensation.
Legal Significance:
The Court stressed the urgent need for fast-track courts for sexual violence cases.
Directed the government to establish more FTCs to prevent prolonged trials and delayed justice.
Emphasized victim protection, including compensation and rehabilitation, integrated with fast-track processes.
Summary and Importance of Fast-Track Courts with Case Laws
Bachan Singh set the foundation for the right to speedy justice.
Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum institutionalized FTCs for crimes against women.
Bhajan Lal reinforced the protection of rights through speedy trial.
Common Cause expanded FTCs’ mandate to protect vulnerable groups.
Laxmi emphasized the need for FTCs post-Nirbhaya and victim-centric approaches.
Challenges with Fast-Track Courts
Infrastructure and resource constraints.
Lack of trained judges and prosecutors.
Sometimes, quality of justice can suffer due to haste.
Political will and consistent monitoring needed.
RELATED Blog
comments