"Fast-track special courts have improved disposal rates but not necessarily the quality of justice." Critically examine with reference to rape and POCSO cases.

The Supreme Court has read speedy trial into Article 21. The Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSC) scheme came out of the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 and the SC's Suo Motu Writ (Crl) No. 1 of 2019 [2]. It has disposed of over four lakh rape and POCSO cases [1]. However, closing cases quickly is not the same as delivering justice.

Gains in disposal

• Volume: 779 functional FTSCs, including 399 exclusive POCSO courts, have disposed of 4,02,457 cases since 2019 [1].
• Dedicated staffing: Each court has 1 judicial officer, 1 Special Public Prosecutor and 6 support staff, so it is not diverted to general cases [1].
• Child focus: About half the courts hear only POCSO cases. This reduces the repeated trauma and hostile witnesses that delay causes [1].
• Assured funding: The scheme has been extended to 2031 with ₹3,788.04 crore. The Central share comes from the Nirbhaya Fund, and courts are allocated using pendency data [1].

Limits, even on speed

• Rising backlog: Pendency grew from about 2.02 lakh (2023) to about 2.46 lakh (2025). In 2025 there were 66,500 disposals against 1,43,936 new cases, a clearance rate of about 46% [3].
• Target unmet: 1,023 courts were approved in 2019 [5], but only 779 work today. Coverage remains at 29 States/UTs [4][3], because a CSS depends on States agreeing to pay their share.

Concerns about the quality of justice

• Disposal is not conviction: The government reports disposals as its main success measure [1]. These counts do not separate convictions, acquittals and closures. Measuring speed alone pushes courts to close cases rather than decide them correctly, which puts at risk the fair-trial rights of both victim and accused.
• Investigation bottleneck: The scheme pays for the courtroom, not for police investigation or forensic labs. A fast court still waits for slow evidence.
• Judge diversion: FTSC judges come from the same State judicial service. Moving an existing judge to an FTSC only shifts the backlog to the court they leave.
• Uncertain tenure: Before the five-year approval, the scheme ran on short temporary extensions [3]. This made it hard to hire and keep contract staff.

Overall, FTSCs have built dedicated capacity, but rising pendency and missing outcome data show that speed has not yet produced quality. The way forward is to publish clearance and conviction figures for each court, add courts district by district as the 2019 SC directions envisaged [2], link FTSCs with forensic and police capacity, and help non-participating States join. Together these would deliver the trial timelines of the 2018 Act and fulfil Article 21 and SDG 16's promise of access to justice.