When 1734 fast track courts were first introduced by on the recommendations of the Eleventh Finance Commission, the idea was the streamline the longest pending cases in the district and sub descrycourts . After the Nirbhaya case, the government decided to accord priority to cases of sexual assault and POSCO, and the record of convictions showed a marked increase.
The Fourteenth Finance Commission (2015–2020) also recommended setting up 1,800 additional fast track courts to handle specific matters like heinous crimes and old property disputes. Soon thereafter, it was felt that top priority should be given to the cases of undertrials whose incarceration in jails had been longer than the maximum length of punishment they would have got under the statute. After the central funding for the Fast Track courts came to an end in 2021, many state governments – and the Union government – for CBI related cases, have established Fast track special courts for high profile cases, especially those related to recruitment scams. The media is agog with positive stories about how well the fast track courts have done.
But that begs the question. Can everything be fast tracked. Can the exception become the norm. Is it not time to examine the real case behind the growing pendency, for even though the rate of disposal is growing with improved monitoring, fewer adjournments and better forensics, the number of new cases being filed each year exceeds the number of cases that have been settled. If this situation continues, there is little hope even as the end of a long tunnel.
What needs to be done? We need to understand that the tripod of criminal justice rests on three legs – investigation, prosecution and trial. For the first, it is imperative that the Supreme Court recommendation of separating the investigation and law and order functions at the level of police station is strictly adhered to. In fact, a basic degree in law should be a prerequisite for recruitment to the investigation wing of the police. The prosecution wing should be manned by the regular cade of public prosecutors, selected by the state public service commissions with career progression up to the level of Director of Prosecution. Political appointments of PPs for the sessions court must be dispensed immediately, and finally, establish fill up the three thousand odd vacancies in the state judicial services across the country. Last, but not the least, decriminalize cases which are compoundable, and focus on the more serious ones in which the minimum punishment is beyond three years.
