Govt-ordered audit of fast-track courts flags need for trained officers, witness deposition centres

Indian Institute of Public Administration’s audit of courts set up by central govt to expedite trial for sexual offences & POCSO cases highlights shortages in report submitted last month.

Representative image | Photo: PTI

New Delhi: Training of investigating officers and key stakeholders, compulsory vulnerable witness deposition centres, skilled and adequate manpower in forensic science labs and electronic evidence management systems — these are some key recommendations made by a research team from the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA) that took stock of fast-track special courts (FTSC).

The IIPA undertook the audit programme — carrying out field visits to FTSCs across India — on the instructions of the Union Ministry of Law and Justice, which had asked it to review the progress of such courts.

It submitted its report, which ThePrint has accessed, to the justice department under the law ministry last month, suggesting continuation of the Modi government’s FTSC scheme, under which special courts are set-up for speedy disposal of rape cases and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act.

The FTSCs were first 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.

As reported by ThePrint earlier, the Modi government has in principle agreed to continue the scheme to set up exclusive FTSCs for sexual offences.

“After the data analysis, it was observed that every state differs with its (case) disposal rate, which is a major factor when we see the overall development of the scheme. Therefore, if the scheme is continued for at least three more years, the states will provide the adequate manpower, and the issues related to pendency could be addressed if the number of courts are further increased per district depending on the pendency rate in that particular state,” the IIPA report states.

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.

Graphic by Ramandeep Kaur, ThePrint

While the scheme had proposed 1,023 FTSCs in 31 states and Union territories, only 765 are functional in 28 states. Of these, 418 are exclusive POCSO courts. Initially, the scheme was spread over two financial years, with a total outlay of Rs 767.25 crore.

Underscoring the need for an audit of the FTSCs, a law ministry official told ThePrint: “It is important to know whether these courts and other stakeholders involved are able to deliver, according to the mandate of the FTSC scheme. The idea behind FTSCs was to ensure quick disposal of cases. The (audit) exercise was undertaken to identify gaps in the scheme’s implementation.”

What the IIPA report says

One of the important suggestions made in the IIPA team’s report is to train investigating officers and key stakeholders involved at the ground level.

“Through the course of recording the inputs of various courts, it was found that the problem of non-trained investigating officers was a common (one), which affected the disposal of cases and at the same time had a negative impact on the dissemination of justice,” the report says.

Since the investigation done for sexual offences becomes the deciding factor in the dispensation of justice to victims, the report has recommended “formal capacity-building of the investigating officers that are dealing with such sensitive cases”.

This should include facets like training on “how the Juvenile Justice Act, the POCSO Act and other child-protection laws are related to one another”, education on rehabilitation and support options available under the POCSO Act and other laws, improving coordination with important stakeholders for successful prosecution and how to preserve DNA evidence collected from the crime scene.

There is also a need for skilled and adequate manpower in forensic laboratories for fair and speedy justice, the IIPA report points out.

Inadequate manpower and lack of essential equipment in these laboratories is one of the biggest hindrances to the “prompt conclusion of criminal investigations”, it observes.

While advocating for periodical evaluation of special fast-track courts via monitoring committees created under each high court, the IIPA report advises another look at the mandate given to FTSCs to decide “at least 165 cases” in a year.

To attain disposal of these many cases “seems a little farfetched”, the report says.

Given the demographic size of India and the judicial procedure of courts, the IIPA believes one specific mandate for all FTSCs is not appropriate, and a state-wise mandate should be fixed after getting an insight into the disposal mechanism in each state.

The IIPA has also emphasised the need to have compulsory vulnerable witness deposition centres in all districts across India, and called for an appointment of a child psychologist in these deposition centres to give support to child-abuse victims before the latter testify in a trial.

Wherever such centres have come up, the courts hearing these cases have seen positive results, states the report.

FTSCs under scanner

The law ministry had earlier set up a dashboard to monitor the progress of the FTSCs.

Data was uploaded to the dashboard every month, providing details of the cases which a particular FTSC had decided in a month, according to law ministry officials.

The IIPA audit, the law ministry officer mentioned earlier said, is in addition to new elements introduced in the dashboard, such as a fresh column in which each FTSC needs to specify how much time it took to decide a case.

“This data should reflect the time taken to dispose of cases between two and 12 months, and after 12 months,” the officer said.

Another column added to the dashboard pertains to pending cases, the officer added.

“Under this, each court has to provide information about how many cases are pending since filing of the chargesheet. This has to be given under three categories — where cases are pending for more than five years, then between two to 12 months, and then two months,” explained the officer, adding that these details need to be updated on the dashboard every month.

(Edited by Nida Fatima Siddiqui)