Fast-track courts dispose more cases, so why do delays persist?

PM Modi's recent announcement of fast-track courts for question paper leak cases has revived a familiar policy response. Whenever a crime or institutional failure sparks public outrage, the promise of speedier justice tends to follow, according to Chethan Kumar’s Times of India report.

This pattern has recurred at several points over the past two and a half decades, when court backlogs mounted around the turn of the century, after the December 2012 Delhi gang rape case, and as cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act accumulated. It is now being extended to exam fraud cases.

Also read: Fast-track court takes CBI chargesheet on record in NEET paper leak case


Over 25 years, the approach has developed into two separate systems: fast-track courts (FTCs) handling general criminal cases, and fast-track special courts (FTSCs) dedicated to rape and POCSO trials. Together, the two systems have disposed of millions of cases and used crores of rupees in public funds, the report noted.

Origins of the scheme

The first FTCs were set up in 2000, after the 11th Finance Commission recommended creating 1,734 such courts with a central allocation of around Rs 503 crore, aimed at clearing long-pending sessions cases. The scheme was extended multiple times before central funding was withdrawn in 2011. In Brij Mohan Lal vs Union of India, the Supreme Court ruled that the Centre was not obligated to keep funding the courts, though states could absorb them into regular judicial infrastructure. This shifted FTCs from a centrally funded initiative into a state-run patchwork with uneven staffing and outcomes.

A second wave followed the 2012 Delhi case, when the Justice Verma Committee called for dedicated mechanisms for sexual violence cases. This, along with amendments to criminal law and Supreme Court directions, led to the FTSC scheme launching in October 2019, funded through the Nirbhaya Fund. As of the end of 2025, the justice department recorded 880 functioning FTCs and 774 FTSCs, per the report.

Disposal numbers vs backlog

Between 2023 and 2025, FTCs disposed of more than 40.2 lakh cases, while FTSCs cleared close to 2.3 lakh rape and POCSO cases in the same window, figures the government has pointed to as proof of improved efficiency, TOI reported.

However, the report cautioned that disposal numbers alone don't capture the full picture: courts have expanded their capacity to hear cases, but backlogs can still grow if new filings outpace disposals.

Findings from evaluations

A 2023 evaluation by the Indian Institute of Public Administration (IIPA), based on field visits and interviews, recommended continuing the FTSC scheme while stressing that courtroom-level reform alone won't ensure faster justice. The evaluation reportedly found that in several districts, FTSCs functioned less as standalone institutions and more as designated case rosters within existing courts, with judges holding additional charge elsewhere and shared prosecutors and staff.

Also read: Fast-track court to begin hearing 2026 NEET-UG paper leak case in Delhi court

Advocate S Balan, a trial lawyer of four decades, was quoted in the report saying the wider justice delivery chain remains strained, citing overburdened investigating officers, backlogged forensic labs, and public prosecutors with limited trial experience.

Earlier research cited in the report, including a 2015 study by the Centre for Law & Policy Research and separate findings from the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, similarly noted that many fast-track courts share administrative structures with regular courts, and that POCSO cases take an average of 510 days to resolve, well beyond the one-year statutory deadline.

Funding and staffing gaps

The current FTSC scheme has an approved outlay of about Rs 1,952 crore, with the Centre funding judicial officers and operational costs while states handle recruitment and infrastructure, the report said. Advocate Rudresh KH, who practises in FTSCs, was quoted noting that many courts operate with minimal support staff, including a shortage of typists for judgments, and that judges face heavy daily caseloads.

Advocate KBK Swamy called for fast-track courts to be backed by legislation rather than ad hoc executive orders, arguing that Parliament should define their structure and resources.

Former special prosecutor Shubha Gaonkar, associated with Vidhi Centre's Nyaaya initiative, was cited saying trials that are meant to conclude within a year often drag on for several years, attributing delays to investigation challenges, prosecution gaps, and litigants seeking stays from higher courts during trial.

The report noted that 25 years on, fast-track courts have shown that dedicated judicial capacity can speed up case disposal, but have not demonstrated that courtroom reform alone can deliver speedy justice, with investigation, prosecution, forensic capacity and staffing all needing to keep pace.

With inputs from TOI