Speedy trial is a facet of the right to life under Article 21. Evaluate the effectiveness of fast-track courts in realising this right for victims of sexual violence.

The Supreme Court in Hussainara Khatoon read speedy trial into Article 21, and for survivors of sexual violence delay is doubly punitive — it compounds trauma, invites witness hostility and erodes evidentiary value. The Fast Track Special Courts (FTSC) scheme, launched in October 2019 for rape and POCSO Act, 2012 cases, is the State's principal institutional answer [1].

Achievements

• Scale of coverage: 775 FTSCs are functional across 29 States/UTs as of 30.04.2026, against a sanctioned 790 — near-complete rollout of the targeted network [1].
• Specialisation for children: 398 exclusive e-POCSO courts create a dedicated, child-sensitive forum, aligning trial procedure with the POCSO Act's protective design [1].
• Cooperative federalism: as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme under the Ministry of Law and Justice, it funds court infrastructure that States alone were unable to create [1].

Limitations

• Continuity risk: the scheme has run on repeated short extensions — the previous one lapsed on 31.03.2026 and it now stands temporarily extended only to 30 September 2026 [1]. Permanent judicial capacity cannot rest on six-month sanctions.
• Uneven presence: courts are not yet functional in all States/UTs, and the shortfall against the sanctioned strength persists [1].
• Supply-side gaps: courts alone cannot deliver speed where investigation, forensic testing, public prosecutors and witness-protection support lag; a fast court behind a slow chain still yields delayed verdicts.
• Monitoring: functional status is compiled from High Court reporting rather than outcome-based disposal audits [1].

Verdict: FTSCs have measurably widened access to a specialised forum and represent real progress on the Article 21 promise, but their effectiveness remains partial — institutional rather than transformative. Placing the scheme on a permanent footing with assured multi-year funding, pairing it with forensic and prosecutorial capacity, and shifting evaluation from courts-created to cases-disposed would convert a functioning network into genuine, timely justice — realising both Article 21 and SDG 16's pledge of accessible justice for all.