The High Courts have voiced serious concern at the persisting delays in fast-track courts, warning that prolonged pendency of cases tends to defeat the very purpose of speedy justice. Though fast-track courts were established for ensuring quick disposal of sensitive and serious cases, many of such matters continued to remain pending for several years, thereby defeating public trust in the judicial system, observed the judges.
The benches have lifted systemic issues such as shortage of staff, inadequate infrastructure, frequent adjournments, and poor case management during the recent hearings as key reasons for delays. Judges said fast-track courts were created with the purpose of prioritizing cases related to crimes against women and children, serious criminal offences, and long-pending trials; however, procedural bottlenecks have resulted in tamping down progress with a limp.
The courts, especially highlighted delays in cases related to sexual offences, atrocities, and vulnerable victims, where on the one hand, delays prolong legal battles; on the other hand, it raises emotional and psychological trauma to an unbearable level until justice is delivered. During a few critical observations, the Judges related that delay in all those aspects practically amounts to denial of justice.
High Courts asked the State Government and the Judicial Administration to provide a detailed explanation on vacancy positions of judges, prosecutors, and court staff in fast-track courts. In most states, the fast-track courts operate with less manpower, compelling one judge to handle an overwhelming number of cases. This, the courts said, directly impinges upon the quality and disposition of the trials.
Judges also noted that frequent adjournments sought by lawyers and investigating agencies contribute to delays. Sometimes, witnesses fail to turn up either because summons are not issued well in advance or because protection to them is not accorded, thus leading to repeated postponements. High Courts, therefore, emphasize that stricter control over unnecessary adjournments and coordination between courts, police, and prosecution departments are urgently required.
The lack of adequate infrastructure was also one major feature that emerged. Many fast-track courts were located in cramped premises, with inadequate courtroom space and limited access to digital facilities, and without adequate staff support. High Courts remarked that without adequate infrastructure, no matter the intent or policy announcements, fast-track courts can simply not perform effectively.
The case backlog issue also came up for considerable discussion. High Courts mentioned that though new fast-track courts were announced from time to time, the existing courts were burdened with mounting pendency. Judges made it a point to stress that just increasing the number of courts without rectifying the structural inefficiencies would not resolve the issue.
In response, High Courts ordered state governments to conduct a status report, which includes steps taken in strengthening fast-track courts. These include timelines for filling up judicial vacancies, improving the physical infrastructure of courtrooms, availability of public prosecutors, and further use of digital tools for case tracking and evidence management.
The Judicial experts, in this regard, have said that sustained monitoring is the only way to make fast-track courts really work, while the legal experts said the accountability mechanism needs to be strengthened so that the deadlines are respected in all cases where the timing is crucial.
High Courts emphasized the need to establish victim-oriented justice by asking the authorities concerned to take all possible measures to protect the witness, provide timely forensic reports, and psychological support when needed. Judges observed that the delays tend to discourage victims from pursuing cases, and the effect on the system of justice delivery becomes spineless.
The courts made it clear that delays in the disposal of cases could not be passed on as an albatross around the neck of the judiciary alone. State governments, police, prosecution agencies, and members of the legal profession had an important role to perform in ensuring trial of cases without unnecessary delays. High Courts warned that continued neglect of fast-track courts could invite stricter directions in the future. But as the scrutiny from the judiciary mounted, it’s now a question of whether all corrective measures indeed translate into actual change on the ground. For millions of litigants who await verdicts, effectively functioning fast-track courts are now critical to restoring faith in India’s justice system and a promise of timely justice into reality.
