New Delhi: The Modi government is likely to continue its centrally sponsored scheme to set up exclusive fast-track special courts (FTSCs) to expedite trials of sexual offence cases, ThePrint has learnt.
Senior officials from the Union Ministry of Law and Justice told ThePrint that the Department of Justice (DoJ) has finalised its proposal and forwarded it to the Union Ministry of Women and Child Development (WCD) for clearance.
“The finances for this scheme are allocated from the Nirbhaya Fund, established after the December 2012 incident in which a woman was brutally gangraped in a moving bus in south-west Delhi and succumbed to injuries sustained in the assault. Hence, the WCD’s nod is needed before we can go ahead with its implementation,” an official working in the DoJ said.
He added that the scheme, which expires on 31 March 2023, will be extended for three years and, if cleared, have a total outlay of Rs 2,600 crore.
A second DoJ official underscored that the scheme had been effective in disposing tens of thousands of cases.
“More than 3.5 lakh cases of sexual assault, including those under POCSO, are pending final adjudication. Since 2020 these FTSCs have decided 1.44 lakh cases falling in this category,” he said.
Under the FTSC scheme, the central government is required to fund 60 per cent of the expenditure of the courts, while the respective state governments contribute the remaining 40 per cent.
The FTSCs was started in October 2019, following amendments in the criminal law that introduced stringent punishment for sexual offences and a deadline of two months for completion of trial in such matters.
While the scheme had proposed 1,023 FTSCs in 31 states and Union territories, only 765 in 28 are functioning. Of these, 418 are exclusive POCSO (Protection of Children from Sexual Offences) courts. Initially, the scheme was spread over two financial years, with a total outlay of Rs 767.25 crore.
Thereafter, the scheme was evaluated by an external agency — the National Productivity Council — which recommended that it should be continued for another two years. Acting on this advice, the law ministry extended the scheme until March 2023, with a total outlay of Rs 1,572 crore.
“Since 31 March, 2023 deadline was coming nearer, the department decided to once again study the efficacy of the FTSCs and hired the services of the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) for this,” the second DoJ official said.
He added that IIPA in its draft report has emphasised the need to continue with the current set-up of FTSCs. Meanwhile, the 15th Finance Commission (FC) report also spoke about giving priority to rape and POCSO cases and suggested that FTSCs operate till March 2026.
Also read: Central ministries biggest litigants in govt with 2.85 lakh pending cases, finance tops list
A ‘success’, but some states lagging
The “success” of the fast-track courts, coupled with the Finance Commission’s advice, led to the proposal to extend their tenure for another three years, said the second DoJ official.
“Looking at the success of these special courts and IIPA’s evaluation supporting it, the law ministry took a call to let the scheme continue till March 2026,” he said.
He also said that in this phase of the scheme, the ministry will also work towards convincing the states to set up all the courts that have been earmarked for their respective jurisdictions.
So far, all the FTSCs are functional in most states. However, four states — Maharashtra, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Assam —are yet to operationalise all the courts that were allotted to them. In addition, West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh have not set up even a single FTSC.
“The scheme had envisaged 138 FTSCs in Maharashtra. But so far, they have started only 33. Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Assam too are falling short of their target, but the gap is not as much as in Maharashtra,” the first DoJ official said.
Law ministry officials claimed that Maharashtra, Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Assam have cited lack of manpower as the reason for not being able to start all FTSCs, while West Bengal and Arunachal Pradesh have remained silent on the issue.
According to the first DoJ official, the number of FTSCs for each state was determined on the basis of pending cases.
“A study was done at the time when the scheme was being drawn out in 2018. It was noticed that each sessions court was capable of disposing 168 cases annually. Therefore, the scheme that was finally worked out allotted 165 cases to each FTSC and the numbers of such courts in each state was accordingly planned,” this official said.
In its budget allocation, the ministry calculated Rs 75 lakh as the annual cost for running each courtroom. Of this budget, 84 per cent is reserved for paying salaries to the presiding officer and the court staff. The scheme outlined one judicial officer and seven court employees for each FTSC.
To make sure that hiring of judges and court workers did not become a barrier to achieving the objective of the scheme, the ministry had also allowed states to take the assistance of retired judicial officers and employees.
The scheme also took care of bridging infrastructural gaps, if any, and permitted states to rent premises to run these courts, in case existing facilities could not accommodate FTSCs.
“However, it appears that states are reluctant to adhere to these interim arrangements provided in the scheme,” the officer said.
The third-party evaluation by IIPA has also pointed to procedural lacunae that are preventing the scheme from achieving a perfect success rate. These include delayed submission of timely investigation reports, forensic documents, and DNA reports in cases of rape.
Other challenges, said law ministry officials, pertained to appointing special public prosecutors in these courts and in providing a victim-friendly environment. “There are very few states that have worked on this front. Some facets of the scheme do require more attention by the states to achieve its true purpose,” they said.
(This is an updated version of the copy.)
(Edited by Asavari Singh)
Also read: FIR to get an abortion, reporting teens dating — why courts find POCSO’s section 19 problematic