Examine the efficacy of Centrally Sponsored Schemes in judicial reform, using the FTSC scheme as an example.

Judicial reform is constitutionally a shared responsibility — courts fall under the States, yet fiscal capacity rests with the Centre. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), operational since October 2019 under the Ministry of Law and Justice for speedy trial of rape and POCSO cases, illustrates both the reach and the limits of this instrument [1][2].

Where the CSS model works

• Rapid scaling: an original target of 1,023 FTSCs translated into 725 functional courts, including 392 exclusive e-POCSO courts, across 29 States/UTs as of 30.06.2025 [2].
• Measurable output: FTSCs disposed of 3,34,213 cases since inception, averaging 9.51 cases per court per month against 3.26 in regular courts [2].
• Standardised inputs: funding of one judicial officer plus seven support staff and a Flexi Grant per court prevents under-resourced, name-only courts [2].
• Cost-sharing incentive: the 60:40 pattern (90:10 for NE/Hill States/UTs) lowers the entry barrier for fiscally weak States [2].
• Rights realisation: gives content to speedy trial under Article 21 and reduces re-traumatisation of child victims under the POCSO Act, 2012.

Where efficacy is constrained

• Uneven internal coverage: within Madhya Pradesh's 67 FTSCs (56 exclusive POCSO courts), Ratlam has two and Jhabua one, while Alirajpur — a tribal district — has none [1].
• Dependence on State follow-through: the Centre funds, but High Courts and States must notify courts and fill posts; national numbers have fluctuated (755 in May 2024 to 725 in 2025), showing rollback risk [2].
• Uncertainty of tenure: extension only till 31.03.2026 with an outlay of Rs. 1952.23 crore makes judicial staffing hostage to periodic Cabinet renewal [2].
• Narrow mandate: pendency in civil and other criminal streams remains untouched.

CSSs are therefore effective as a targeted accelerator, not as a substitute for structural reform. Converting FTSCs into permanently sanctioned posts, tying releases to district-level coverage gaps, and pairing them with victim-support and vacancy-filling measures would align the scheme with SDG 16's promise of accessible justice for all.