Judicial infrastructure deficits often trigger friction between the executive and judiciary. Examine the reasons for chronic vacancies in fast-track courts and suggest remedies.

Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), operating as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme funded through the Nirbhaya Fund, were meant to deliver time-bound trials in rape and POCSO cases; 775 FTSCs were functional in 29 States/UTs as of April 2026 [1]. Yet sanctioned posts often stay unfilled, and the resulting blame-shifting strains executive-judiciary relations — as seen when the Bombay High Court initiated criminal contempt proceedings in September 2026 against Maharashtra's Law Department Secretary during a hearing on 179 vacant fast-track court posts [5][6].

Why vacancies persist

• Shared but unclear responsibility: creation of posts and funds lies with the State executive, while selection and recommendation run through the High Court — neither side owns the delay [2][4].
• Recruitment lag: the Standing Committee on Law and Justice (2021) noted prescribed timelines for initiating appointments are rarely adhered to, a pattern visible across the judiciary [2].
• Thin parent cadre: FTSCs draw on a district judiciary already carrying heavy vacancies and 87.6% of India's case pendency, so filling one court empties another [3].
• Scheme uncertainty: FTSCs run on short, repeatedly extended scheme cycles, discouraging States from creating permanent cadre posts [1].
• Infrastructure and staff deficit: court halls, residential units and support staff lag, tracked under the Nyaya Vikas portal; a judge cannot be posted where no courtroom exists [4].

Remedies

• Convert proven FTSC posts into permanent sanctioned strength with assured multi-year funding, removing scheme-cycle uncertainty [1].
• Calendar-bound recruitment: annual, timeline-mandated selection cycles jointly monitored by the High Court and State, with vacancies notified before retirement dates [2].
• Strengthen the infrastructure scheme's 60:40 Centre-State delivery and link fund release to timely post-filling [4].
• Institutionalise regular State-level Judicial Infrastructure Committees, so grievances are aired administratively rather than escalating into contempt [5].

Chronic FTSC vacancies are less a resource problem than a coordination failure between two constitutional organs. Treating judicial infrastructure as shared national infrastructure — with permanent posts, predictable funding and structured consultation — would advance both Article 21's promise of speedy justice and SDG 16 on access to justice.