Intra-state disparities often undermine the objectives of nationally funded schemes. Discuss with reference to the Fast Track Special Courts scheme in tribal districts.

The Centrally Sponsored Scheme (CSS) for Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), running since October 2019, funds States to try rape and POCSO Act cases in a time-bound manner [2]. Yet uniform national funding does not guarantee uniform district-level access — a gap starkest in tribal districts.

Scheme design and its promise

• Centre augments State resources on a 60:40 (90:10 for NE/Hill States) pattern, funding one Judicial Officer, seven support staff and a Flexi Grant per court, extended till 31.03.2026 at Rs. 1952.23 crore [2].
• Performance justifies scale: 725 FTSCs including 392 exclusive POCSO Courts across 29 States/UTs had disposed of 3,34,213 cases by 30.06.2025 [2].

Evidence of intra-state disparity

• Madhya Pradesh has 67 FTSCs, of which 56 are exclusive POCSO Courts — a strong aggregate figure [1].
• Disaggregated, the picture shifts: Ratlam has 2 FTSCs, Jhabua 1, and Alirajpur — a tribal-majority district — none [1]. State averages thus mask district voids.

Why disparities undermine objectives

• Access to justice: victims in uncovered districts revert to regular courts, whose disposal is far slower, diluting the scheme's core promise of speedy trial under Article 21.
• Equity: the burden falls on tribal and remote populations already facing distance, cost and language barriers — the very groups the POCSO Act, 2012 prioritises.
• Implementation bottlenecks: judicial vacancies, courtroom infrastructure and State-share release constrain operationalisation, since High Courts, not the Centre, actually staff these courts [1].

Fast Track Special Courts show that a well-funded CSS can deliver at scale while still leaving pockets untouched. The corrective lies in need-based allocation keyed to pendency and vulnerability rather than administrative convenience — prioritising aspirational and tribal districts, filling judicial vacancies, and using National Judicial Data Grid pendency data for transparent siting. Aligning outlays with outcomes would carry the constitutional promise of speedy, equal justice to India's last district, advancing SDG-16 on access to justice for all.