High Trial Pendency In Fast Track Special Courts Set Up For Child Sexual Abuse Cases

A lack of infrastructure and judges means that courts especially set up for quick justice are also burdened, leading to delayed justice for stakeholders, especially the victims of crimes such as sexual violence.

Since 2019, when a new Centrally Sponsored Scheme for FTSCs was launched, these courts have disposed of 299,624 cases, while 204,122 are pending, as per a Department of Justice dashboard.

Two government sources provide different data on fast track courts in India–the Department of Justice Dashboard says there are 747 such courts, including 406 exclusively for cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (POCSO, 2012); the Minister for State for Law and Justice, Arjun Meghwal, had told Parliament in December 2024 that 863 fast track courts were operational in India as of October 2024.

Fast Track Special Courts

The 14th Finance Commission recommended setting up 1,800 FTSCs from 2015 to 2020 for speedy trials of specific cases related to women, children, senior citizens, disabled persons, persons infected with terminal ailments etc. and property-related cases pending for more than five years.

Then the Union government set up a new Centrally Sponsored Scheme, the Fast Track Special Courts Scheme in 2019, following the enactment of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, which among other things, added a death penalty for those convicted of rape. This was also done post a Supreme Court of India order in a writ petition on cases of child rape. The scheme mandated the establishment of exclusive POCSO Courts for districts with over 100 POCSO cases, as per a government press release from November 2023. In 2019, there were 389 districts where pending cases under the POCSO Act exceeded 100. Additionally, the policy also asked that 790 courts be set-up all across India.

Launched for two financial years, 2019-20 and 2020-21, the scheme had an initial outlay of Rs 767.25 crore. The government extended the scheme twice, once in 2021 for two years and then in 2023 for another three years till March 31, 2026.

Between 2023 and 2026, the total outlay translates to Rs 75 lakh per court per annum. This would barely cover a court’s costs as laid out in the guidelines for FTSCs.

Why fast track courts are burdened

According to a study in 2022 by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, an independent think-tank focused on legal research and public policy, it took FTSCs 509.78 days, on average, to dispose of a POCSO case. This goes against Section 35 of the POCSO Act which stipulates disposal within one year as far as possible.

Guidelines issued in 2023 by the Ministry of Law and Justice for FTSCs mandate one judicial officer and seven support staff members, exclusively for disposal of rape and POCSO cases. However, in many instances, judicial officers from district and sessions Courts are given additional charge for FTSCs, said Priyamvadha Shivaji, research fellow at the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.

This problem is further exacerbated given judicial vacancies (20.4% as of 2024) in district and sessions courts.

FTSCs use existing court infrastructure as they do not receive funds to set up their own infrastructure. In a 2019 study by the Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, titled ‘Building Better Courts: Surveying the Infrastructure of India’s District Courts’, only 59% of court complexes had a first-aid kit, 60% did not have a fully functional toilet, 69% of litigants demanded additional seating amenities whereas only 27% were accessible through ramps.

According to the State of Judiciary Report (2023) by the Centre for Research & Planning of the Supreme Court of India, 83.1% of district courts in India do not have a Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centre, for witnesses including a child who has not attained the age of 18 years of age, witnesses suffering from mental illness or any disability, victims of sexual assault, those under witness protection or any other witness deemed vulnerable by the court.

Further, POCSO courts do not have facilities like victim rooms, which means victims have to wait in the corridors, which is difficult for them, said Natasha S, legal coordinator at Majlis Law, an organisation working for the protection and promotion of women and children’s rights through legal representation, advocacy and training.

“I think it is also a factor of how there is no real thinking in terms of what the purpose behind this Fast-Track Court is. You cannot just designate one courtroom in an existing court as a Fast-Track Court,” said Shivaji.

She talks about how these courts should be sensitised to traumatic cases--such as rape and child abuse--and their processes should reflect that. The use of conventional litigation and prosecution frameworks lead to considerable delays in case disposal and also adds to the trauma that a victim has to go through at FTSCs, she explained.

As we said, as many as 239,188 cases out of 268,038 cases under POCSO in 2022 were awaiting trial, a pendency rate of 89.2%, according to data from 2022 from the National Crime Records Bureau (NCRB).

“Child support workers and others and the judges who say that they have not been given any specialised training to handle these kinds of cases,” Shivaji said. “So, then what happens is if you do not know how to talk to a child victim, you end up prolonging the time for evidence seeking…You do not know the right kind of conclusions that you have to draw from it. So, that does not lead to an increased conviction rate either.”

Further, as FTSCs are supposed to be temporary, there lacks substantive incentive for the administration and the court to allocate sufficient planning and administrative effort to these courts,experts said.

‘There is a lack of FTSCs (especially in Mumbai). Earlier there used to be FTSCs but now they are being disbanded and the cases are transferred to other courtrooms which just prolongs the trial,” said Natasha S. of Majlis Law. “FTSCs are losing their importance as the infrastructure is not able to support them.”

Also, issues of procedural lethargy, technical issues related to issues with paperwork, non-receipt of Forensic Science Laboratories (FSL), lack of police witness etc. continue to affect the efficiency of these courts.

IndiaSpend has reached out to Rajiv Mani, Secretary, Department of Legal Affairs and the Legislative Department, Ministry of Law & Justice, and Raj Kumar Goyal, Secretary, Department of Justice, Ministry of Law & Justice, for comment on issues related to FTSCs. We will update the story when we receive a response.

We welcome feedback. Please write to respond@indiaspend.org. We reserve the right to edit responses for language and grammar.