It is assumed that special courts are a panacea for judicial efficiency.
But the system needs a reassessment to understand its actual working efficacy, for it to be more rational in number and functioning.
What are special courts?
Special courts have existed in the subordinate judiciary since before Independence.
A special court is one which is to deal with special types of cases under a shortened and simplified procedure.
They are established under a statute meant to address specific disputes falling within that statute.
Over 25 special courts were set up between 1950 and 2015 through various Central and State legislations.
What are fast track courts?
Fast track courts on the other hand were the result of recommendations made by the 11th Finance Commission.
11th FC advised the creation of 1,734 such courts to deal with the judicial backlog.
They were actualised though an executive scheme as opposed to a statute of the legislature in case of special courts.
Moreover these are meant to be set up by the State governments in consultation with the respective high courts.
What are the concerns with special courts?
Understanding - Special courts are a significant means of addressing the specificities of certain statutes and judicial backlog.
However, there is little if any evaluation of how this system works and a vacuum exists in research and analysis of special courts.
This has led to inconsistencies in legislation and operation, which is more pronounced by the Parliament.
Central legislations from Special Criminal Courts (Jurisdiction) Act, 1950 to the Prevention of Money Laundering (Amendment) Act, 2012 prove this point.
Ambiguities - The Special Courts case clearly uses the phrase “established under statute”, meaning the establishment of a new court.
However statutes use terms like “constitute”, “create”, “designate”, “notify”, “appoint”, etc leading to ambiguities of its stature.
The anomaly is that these terms have not been defined or procedurally explained.
Moreover, certain legislations state that the government “may” set up special courts, while other say the government “shall”.
However, going by the definition, the answer as to whether a law requires a special court or not should only be either yes or no.
Leaving options such as “may”, add to the ambiguities.
Clarity - For States and high courts, this leads to uncertainties in operation and setting up such courts.
There is lack of clarity in specifics like:
Do they require new buildings?
Should more judicial officers be hired?
If a judge is designated under a special statute, should those matters be added to or replace her roster?
This also creates confusion with respect to appointments, budgetary allocation, infrastructure, and listing practices.
Purpose - There are more special courts under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 than SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989.
However the former is said to have a tenth of the number of registered cases as the latter (2015).
This points to the unclear legislative intent for creating special courts.
What is the way forward?
The SC should address the constitutional status, and analyse policy questions pertaining to the need and efficiency of special courts.
There are over 2.8 crore cases in the subordinate judiciary, which is the highest out of the three tiers of the judiciary.
The working of special courts has to be studied critically.
Parameters such as the frequency and number of effective hearings and calculating the number of pending cases need to be developed.
These are essential to check the growing number of special courts being established without definite purposes.
In all, it is important to determine whether or not this special courts system is in fact helpful in addressing the judicial backlog.
