Why in news?
The Supreme Court has directed the government to set up fast-track courts to exclusively deal with cases involving politicians holding public office.
How was the directive received?
- The SC directive was in response to a PIL petition that sought to weed out criminals in politics at the earliest.
- While the government agreed to set-up 12 special courts for the same, some voiced dissent in the parliament as this would single out politicians from the rest.
- Civil society at large sees the intention of the government to introduce greater accountability and to depoliticise criminal accusations is worthy.
- But there is also concern that the fast-track courts have been largely ineffective and unconvincing.
What are the specifics of fast-track courts?
- The first such fast-track courts were introduced in 2000, following a suggestion from the Eleventh Finance Commission.
- At that point, 1,734 fast-track courts were set up to help clear pending cases, which were choking the judicial system.
- Despite tenure being extended in 2005 and yet again in 2010, they did not make as much headway as was hoped in fixing the problem of pendency.
- Also, existing fast-track courts been found to be more susceptible to having their verdicts overturned on appeal.
- So, expanding their number and scope would look like institutionalising the miscarriage of justice.
- Also, there are already multiple experiments with fast-track courts that have not materially changed the quality of justice available in India.
- Experience aside, fast-track courts can be questioned even in terms of principle as Justice should have no favourites.
What needs to be done?
- Setting up fast-track courts whenever a particular problem is brought to its notice enables the government is ducking its responsibility to reform overall judicial reform.
- The regular justice system to work more swiftly and surely and all cases need to be addressed speedily.
- Administrative reform of the courts and professionalization of their management is an important first step.
- Judicial appointments should be stepped up, and funding should not be as constrained as is the case at present.
Source: Business Standard
