Introduction:
“Justice delayed is justice denied,” you have all heard this phrase in your life, and it accurately describes the current situation in India. Though difficult to define, justice can be said to vary depending on the situation and person. Since we now live in a democratic country like India where people are governed by the laws of the country, it is critical that victims receive justice on time. People unsurprisingly fall prey to injustice. The majority of Indians are poor and illiterate, but they manage to go to court to seek justice by paying their hard-earned money to advocates and law clerks, only to be denied. This has been a curse and a major shortcoming of our Indian judicial justice system.
Fast Track Justice:
Since 1986, the Supreme Court of India has recognised speedy trial as a fundamental right. The Supreme Court made it clear that “speedy trial is of essence to criminal justice and there can be no doubt that the delay in trial by itself constitutes denial of justice”. We know how that has played out in practise over the last three decades. Cases
continue to languish, pendency worsens, and an increasing number of Indians are denied the benefits of a well-functioning judicial system that provides timely justice.
In another case the Supreme Court stated that, “there can be no doubt that speedy trial — and by speedy trial we mean a reasonably expeditious trial — is an integral and essential part of fundamental right to life and liberty enshrined in Art 21”.
It is an essential obligation. Even without Art. 21, the constitutional mandate for proactive justice is recognisable. The state is obligated by the Constitution’s preamble to provide social, economic, and political justice to all of its citizens. Also, according to the Directive Principles of State Policy, the state should strive for a social order in which such justice informs all institutions of national life.
Due to the large number of vacancies in nearly all courts across the country, as well as an ever-increasing pool of litigants and citizens seeking Judicial services, this has frequently appeared to be an intractable problem. One solution to the problem of pending cases and speeding up the delivery of justice in India has been the establishment of dedicated Fast Track Courts. Fast Track Courts are ad hoc institutions established to deal with a specific type of case, such as ad hoc courts established to deal only with cases involving sexual assault or POSCO. Fast Track Courts were established after the 11th Finance Commission recommended in 2000 the establishment of 1,7234 fast track courts to ensure the expeditious disposition of pending cases in lower courts.
An over-view on fast track justice:
Fast Track Courts were designed for a very simple reason and operate on an extremely simplistic premise – dedicated courts entrusted with the faster and effective dispensing of justice to those in need for a specific category and type of crime. Provided this framework, it is confusing to accept that, according to available research, Fast Track Courts have produced worse outcomes than traditional courts.
As per 11th Finance Commission, the state governments were to establish FTCs in consultation with the respective High Courts. Each district of the country was to have an average of five FTCs. These FTC judges were appointed on ad hoc basis. The judges were to be chosen by the respective state’s high courts. There are three primary sources of recruitment-
- First, members are promoted from among eligible judicial officers;
- Second, retired High Court judges are appointed;
- and third, members are appointed from among members of the respective state’s
Bar.
FTCs were instituted for a five-year period (2000-2005). However, the Supreme Court in case of Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India2 ordered the central government to keep the FTC scheme functioning, which was extended until 2010-2011. In March 2011, the government ended the FTC scheme. Despite the fact that the central government no longer provides financial assistance to states for the establishment of FTCs, state governments can still establish FTCs with their own funds. In case of Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India3, the central government’s decision not to fund FTCs beyond 2011 was challenged in the Supreme Court. In 2012, the Court upheld the central government’s decision. It ruled that state governments have the right to decide whether or not to
continue with the scheme.
Miscarriage Of Fast Track Justice:
As per data of the NCRB for 2018, of the around 28,000 trials done in Fast Track Courts across the country in that year, 78% took more than a year to complete and hence puts trial courts at the bottom of the rung in terms of time taken amongst all courts in India. In fact, around 42% of the trials went on for more than three years and as many as 17% of all cases took more than half a decade to complete.4
2 Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India (2005) 3 SCR 103.
3 Brij Mohan Lal v Union of India (2012) 6 SCC 502.
One reason of pendency and delay in fast track justice is that the Fast Tracks Courts are extremely similar to regular courts in almost every significant manner. They follow the same processes and procedures, and the trials are conducted in the same manner as they would in any other court.
Instead, these courts are frequently entrusted with trials involving criminal cases and the most heinous of crimes, having been established on an ad hoc basis to begin with for a specific type and category of crimes. Given these facts, it is not surprising that these institutions have fallen far short of their stated mission.
Conclusion:
A number of steps should be taken to redefine the judicial system, including increasing the number of fast track courts and digitalizing the entire country’s judicial system. The judges must set a better example for themselves and others by being more punctual and compassionate. The Supreme Court has already taken some steps, such as
introducing E-filing, which allows an advocate or petitioner to file his or her case online from remote location in the world. Justice delayed and denied means that if justice is not carried out promptly, even if it is carried out later, it is not truly justice because there was a period of time when there was a lack of justice.