question_answer

A researcher has found that the aggregate time taken by a regular court to dispose of a case was less than that taken by a fast-track court. It is not proper to blame the scheme and permit the government to scrap it. The reasons behind such a state of affairs should be considered.

Firstly, there are not enough Judges to man fast-track courts. In addition, to act speedily, a judge needs a suitable temperament and proper assistance. In some states, judges who have recently retired were re-employed and appointed in fast-track courts. When this proved to be inadequate, some judges working in the district judiciary were designated as fast-track court judges. Drafting judges from the existing judiciary is no remedy either for speedy disposal of cases or for lessoning pendency. The district judiciary is also short of judges. Even the sanctioned strength is not filled in many states, saving the government more expenditure.

Courts also face another practical difficulty in the disposal of cases. Most of the work is concentrated in the hands of a few advocates. It is difficult to compel or seek their presence at the convenience of the court. Judges too have to accommodate them. Sometimes, even sessions cases cannot be heard on a day-to-day basis as required by law.

After the Introduction of the scheme in 2000, central and state governments provided finances for these courts, particularly the salaries of the judges. Whether the amount disbursed was sufficient or not is a different question. A judge cannot work in isolation. He needs accommodation to sit, clerical assistance and minimum office equipment. To try and get all these done with the existing amenities cannot be a proper approach.

Fast-track courts are treated as a temporary measure by governments. Considering that all efforts to clear pendency have not been very successful, we will have to bear with the problem for another 20 years. Why not give a semi-permanent status to the fast-track court scheme and make regular appointments? It is true that such a step would increase the allocated budget for law and judiciary. Unfortunately, this is not a priority for political parties. But they should understand that increasing the number of courts and disposal of long-pending cases will have a salutary effect on society. But it will not fetch immediate political gain. Only those who care for long-term benefits and are courageous to stand by measures in this regard can do it.

If we believe that fast disposal of at least criminal cases will help restore confidence in the people about their safety and ensure peace in society, let a law be framed to provide for fast-track courts and make a permanent arrangement for their survival. It should be uniformly applicable to the whole of India and should depend only on central funding. The law may provide a duration of some 20 years for the existence of fast-track courts as it is hoped that this is sufficient to wipe out the arrears and there would be no need for fast-track courts. They should function under the supervision of relevant High Courts. Public prosecutors should be appointed for a certain period and the appointment should be given to lawyers with experience in conducting criminal cases.

What legal measure does author propose for fast track courts?

A) Legal measure for fast track courts, either permanent or of fixed duration, central funding

B) Legal measure for fast track courts, permanent, central funding in some states

C) Legal measure for fast track courts, central funding with retired judges

D) Legal measure for fast track courts, central funding with local representation