"Fast-Track Courts for Exam Fraud: Constitutional Basis, Performance, and Limits"
Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs)
centrally sponsored courts exclusively for rape and POCSO offences, partially funded by Nirbhaya Fund.
Intelligible Differentia
the constitutional requirement under Article 14 that a classification must have a rational nexus to the legislative object.
India's judicial system carries one of the heaviest case-pendency burdens in the world, with tens of millions of cases awaiting disposal across district, High Court, and Supreme Court levels. Against this backdrop, fast-track courts (FTCs) have periodically been deployed as a targeted institutional response — carving out specific categories of offences or vulnerable demographics for expedited adjudication. The concept gained formal policy momentum through the Fourteenth Finance Commission (2015–2020), which recommended establishing 1,800 FTCs to address heinous crimes such as murder, kidnapping, and extortion, as well as long-pending property disputes and cases involving women, children, senior citizens, persons with disabilities, and those with terminal illnesses.
The constitutional underpinning for special courts flows from Article 247 (Parliament's power to establish additional courts for better administration of Union laws) and the superintendence of High Courts over subordinate courts under Article 227. Crucially, any classification of cases for fast-tracking must satisfy Article 14's guarantee of equality before the law — a constraint the Supreme Court has enforced since its landmark 1952 ruling in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, where it struck down a law permitting arbitrary selection of cases for special courts on the sole ground of 'speedier trial', holding that speed alone is too vague and elusive a criterion to constitute a valid classification.
The most significant recent expansion of FTCs came in 2019, when the Union government launched a Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Fast-Track Special Courts (FTSCs), partially funded through the Nirbhaya Fund, exclusively for the time-bound trial of rape cases and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act. This scheme was triggered by amendments to criminal law and a Supreme Court directive, and it represents the most institutionalised form of fast-tracking in India's judicial architecture.
Fast-track courts are not governed by a single, unified central legislation. They are created through a combination of Finance Commission recommendations, centrally sponsored schemes, Supreme Court directives, and High Court notifications — making the framework inherently decentralised and variable across states. This also means their jurisdiction, funding, and operational standards differ significantly from one state to another.
The constitutional validity of special courts rests on the principle of intelligible differentia under Article 14: the classification of cases must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved. In State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Supreme Court established that 'speed' alone cannot justify differential treatment. However, subsequent jurisprudence has been more permissive where there is a clear public interest rationale — for instance, the Supreme Court directed the establishment of a special court for the 2G spectrum scam (notified in March 2011, operating from Patiala House Courts Complex), and the Andhra Pradesh High Court set up a dedicated court for the Satyam Computer Services accounting fraud. …
With reference to Indian judiciary, consider the following statements:
1.Any retired judge of the Supreme Court of India can be called back to sit and act as a Supreme Court judge by the Chief Justice of India with prior permission of the President of India.
2.In India, any High Court has the power to review its own judgement as the Supreme Court does.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
The Supreme Court's ruling in State of West Bengal v. Anwar Ali Sarkar (1952) is significant in the context of special courts because it held that:
Which of the following constitutional provisions are most directly relevant to the establishment and oversight of fast-track courts in India?
1.Article 14 — Right to Equality
2.Article 227 — Superintendence of High Courts over subordinate courts
3.Article 247 — Power of Parliament to provide for additional courts
4.Article 32 — Right to Constitutional Remedies
Select the correct answer using the code given below:
Assertion (A): The Constitution Bench ruling in P. Rama Chandra Rao v. State of Karnataka (2002) held that criminal courts are not obliged to terminate a trial merely because a fixed time period has elapsed.
Reason (R): Setting strict statutory time limits for trial completion would amount to impermissible judicial legislation.
Which of the following is correct?
Want the full note, Prelims Facts & MCQ answers?
Create a free account — takes less than a minute.
Create free account