Context
Recently, the Union Cabinet approved a five-year extension of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), including exclusive POCSO courts, from April 1, 2026, to March 31, 2031.
About Fast Track Courts (FTCs)
- Meaning: Fast Track Courts are special courts established to ensure the speedy disposal of cases involving serious offences and matters requiring priority judicial attention.
- Legal Framework: There is no single central legislation governing the establishment and functioning of all Fast Track Courts.
- Recommendation: The Fourteenth Finance Commission (2015–2020) recommended the establishment of 1,800 FTCs.
- Administrative Jurisdiction: The establishment and functioning of subordinate courts, including Fast Track Courts (FTCs), fall within the domain of State Governments in consultation with the respective High Courts.
- Objective: To reduce judicial pendency and ensure expeditious trials in cases involving:
- Heinous crimes such as murder, kidnapping and extortion.
- Property disputes pending for more than five years.
- Cases involving vulnerable groups such as women, children, senior citizens and persons with disabilities.
- Individuals suffering from terminal illnesses.
About Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs)
- Establishment: In 2019, following amendments to criminal laws and directions from the Supreme Court, the Union Government launched a Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) to establish Fast Track Special Courts.
- Nature: Specialised courts exclusively dedicated to the time-bound trial of:
- Rape cases.
- Offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012.
- Funding: The scheme is partially funded through the Nirbhaya Fund.
Constitutional Provisions Governing Fast Track Courts
- Article 14 – Right to Equality:
- The establishment of special courts must comply with the principle of equality before the law.
- Arbitrary selection of cases for special treatment is constitutionally impermissible.
- State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952):
- The Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed arbitrary selection of cases for trial by special courts.
- It held that the mere objective of achieving a speedy trial is insufficient to justify discriminatory classification.
- Such classification must satisfy the test of reasonable classification under Article 14.
Can a Fast-Track Court Be Established to Hear an Individual Case?
- Special courts may be established to handle specific high-priority cases, provided the classification satisfies constitutional requirements.
- Examples:
- Satyam Computer Services Scam (2010): The Andhra Pradesh High Court established a special court to exclusively try the accounting scam.
- 2G Spectrum Allocation Scam (2011): The Supreme Court directed the establishment of a special court for an exclusive and day-to-day trial of the case.
Speedy Trial and Time Limits
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023:
- Recommends that criminal trials should ideally be completed within two years.
- Trials involving sexual offences should ideally be completed within two months.
- FTSC Disposal Target:
- Each FTSC is expected to dispose of approximately 41–42 cases per quarter.
- This translates into a target of at least 165 cases annually.
Performance of Fast Track Courts
- Regular FTCs: As of January 2026, 862 regular FTCs were functioning across 21 States and Union Territories.
- FTSCs: 774 FTSCs, including 398 exclusive POCSO courts, were operational across 29 States and Union Territories.
- Disposal Rate: The disposal rate of FTSCs was approximately 96%.
Important Supreme Court Judgments
- State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952): Established that special courts must comply with Article 14, and arbitrary classification of cases for speedy trials is constitutionally impermissible.
- P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002): Courts cannot impose a uniform outer time limit for completing all criminal proceedings, nor can criminal trials be automatically terminated solely because a prescribed period has elapsed.
| Important CTC From This Article: Fourteenth Finance Commission |
Q. With reference to Fast Track Courts (FTCs) in India, consider the following statements:
1. The Fourteenth Finance Commission recommended the establishment of 1,800 Fast Track Courts to expedite the disposal of specified categories of cases.
2. The Supreme Court, in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), held that the government can arbitrarily select cases for special courts if the objective is speedy trial.
3. The Supreme Court, in P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002), held that a uniform outer time limit cannot be prescribed for the conclusion of all criminal proceedings.
4. The establishment of special courts must satisfy the test of reasonable classification under Article 14 of the Constitution.
Which of the statements given above are correct?
(a) 1 and 2 only
(b) 1, 3 and 4 only
(c) 2 and 3 only
(d) 1, 2, 3 and 4
Answer: (b) 1, 3 and 4 only
Explanation:
• Statement 1 is correct: The Fourteenth Finance Commission (2015–2020) recommended the establishment of 1,800 Fast Track Courts to expedite trials involving heinous crimes, long-pending property disputes and cases involving vulnerable sections of society.
• Statement 2 is incorrect: In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952), the Supreme Court struck down arbitrary classification of cases for trial by special courts. It held that the objective of speedy trial alone cannot justify discriminatory selection of cases.
• Statement 3 is correct: In P. Ramachandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002), a seven-judge Constitution Bench held that prescribing a uniform outer time limit for the conclusion of all criminal proceedings is neither advisable nor judicially permissible.
• Statement 4 is correct: The establishment of special courts must comply with Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law. Classification of cases must have a rational basis and should not be arbitrary.