Haste goes waste. This
was the least of all to be expected from fast track courts set up
during NDA era. Yet instances of miscarriage of justice on this fast
lane has not deterred UPA higher-ups to continue with their
predecessors favourite toy
Speedy trial is a fundamental right of all accused persons. This has
clearly been laid down by Supreme Court in Husseinara Khatoon case.
Often various High Courts too have reaffirmed this through their
orders, or observations made in several cases. Yet we have often read
and hear stories how the undertrial prisoners languish in prison
without undergoing trial and many times this surpasses the maximum
sentence prescribed for offence allegedly committed by then. In the
early part of this decade the last NDA government came up with a novel
idea of 'Fast Track Courts'. The idea was to speed up justice delivery
system and clear the backlog of cases pending in different courts. The
project was supposed to be fully funded by the central government.
'Justice delayed is justice denied' is an old yet important maxim. And,
thus, justice should not be so delayed because it is as good as denied
to the seeker of justice. Yet care is called for because quest for
speed should not lead to what could turn out to be a case of 'haste is
waste'. The fast track courts system was initially brought mainly for
the criminal cases at the session's court level but now has been
extended to the civil cases as well. It was another knee jerk reaction
of government towards the problem of the prolonged pending cases.
Without looking into the root cause of the pending cases and the over
crowding of prisons the government introduced the fast track courts
across the country.
Concerns
Some of the concerns of the working of the fast track courts and
whether they in reality serve the purpose of speedier justice require
to be looked into. One of the major problems with the system of the
fast track courts was that the number of judges was not increased. The
existing judges were shifted to the fast track courts or some were
promoted to the level of sessions judge to fill in the posts created
for the fast track courts. This created a shortage of judges and the
magistrates in the regular courts and actually increased pendency of
cases in the regular courts. The 120th law commission has recommended
five fold increase in the number of judges in all courts across the
country to cater to the needs of present population. Significantly, the
number of judges in High Courts and Supreme Court has not been
increased. Thus even if the trial gets over in the lower court the
pendency time increases when it comes to appeal in the higher courts.
Some judges were given extension even after their retirement. It is
unfair to expect of judges close to retirement, or who get extension,
or who worked at their own speed throughout their career to work at a
breakneck speed.
Though the UPA government when came to power had made comments about
scrapping the fast track court system, but has continued to support
them. The lawmakers and the bureaucrats need to understand the judges
are human beings and not machines that they suddenly increase the speed
of production also the justice delivery system is not a production unit
where the pre set targets have to be met. A court needs to understand
the behaviour of the witnesses, time to go through the evidence in the
case and decide carefully over the matter. So time constraints may lead
to miscarriage of justice. Justice should be done and not just should
seem to be done.
Economic considerations
Somewhere the consideration of the government was completely misplaced.
It was not so much of speedy justice but to save the money being spent
on undertrial prisoners. The eleventh finance commission (EFC), which
has provided a grant of Rs 502.90 crores for the creation of additional
courts, specifically recommended disposal of long-pending cases.
According to NC Jain, member, EFC, the scheme will help make enormous
savings in terms of the expenses incurred over the maintenance of
undertrials, who numbered 1,88,241 as on December 31, 1998. Jain
estimates that the average cost per undertrial a day is Rs 55, covering
food, medicine and clothing, with extra provision for sanitation and
water, correctional programmes, and transportation to the courts and
back. The annual expenditure on each undertrial thus comes to about Rs
20,000.
The maintenance of the 1.2 lakh undertrials in prisons across the
country costs the government Rs 240 crores a year. A substantial part
of this amount could be saved if cases against them were expeditiously
tried and disposed of. The EFC has estimated that the annual recurring
expenditure in respect of fast track sessions courts at the rate of
five a district would be approximately Rs 87 crores. The net saving for
the government would, therefore, be Rs 153 crores a year.1
Thus to save the money the government would not care if the justice was
actually being denied. It is supposed of the fast track court to
dispose of nearly 15 sessions' cases in a month. If we consider that in
a month the court works for 24 days (not considering the public
holidays on weekdays), the court has to nearly decide the fate of
unedrtrials prisoners involved in serious offences and who may end up
behind bars for years or even go to the gallows, at extremely high
speed and under immense pressure of meeting the target. The speed
really puts the justice at stake.
Results
One of the glaring blunders we have seen committed by the fast track
court and which has been acknowledged by the Supreme Court also is the
fast track court in Vadodara which initially decided the Best Bakery
case. The National Human Rights Commission had to approach the Supreme
Court against the miscarriage of justice.
In the case of Digambar Majkure decided in the Bombay High Court in
September 2006 the court came down heavily on the functioning of the
fast track courts. The court held: “But, in our considered opinion, it
is necessary to write a detailed order in this regard as a matter of
guidance to the Fast Track Courts established by the Central
Government. We are sitting on Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction for last
about two months and even earlier thereto. The results given by Fast
Track Courts are no doubt laudatory and praiseworthy. But it appears
that in the zeal to decide the trial fast, statutory or constitutional
provisions are also given a go bye by learned Judges like the one who
passed this impugned order. We are certainly of the view that though
the Fast Track Courts should act fast and justice should be delivered
as quickly as possible, decision of a criminal trial cannot be speedily
given at the cost of justice. To deny legal aid, though statutorily
required to be provided and constitutionally mandated by the
Constitution, would certainly infringe the right guaranteed to every
citizen by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Such trampling of
statutory and constitutional rights should not take place at the hands
of those who are responsible for administration of justice. We
sincerely hope that while acting as Fast Track Courts or as part of
administration of criminal justice, due urgency is achieved, but in so
delivering justice at a fast pace, statutory provisions should not be
trampled. The case in hand is an example of this type. The incident
occurred on 28th May 2001 and the trial was over by 26th November 2001
i.e. exactly in a span of six months. Had the learned Judge granted
adequate time and legal aid to the accused, may be the trial would have
been over by the end of year 2001, whatever the result. Presently the
accused is languishing in jail for last five years with a blatant
illegality committed in his trial. In the event of the fresh trial
ending in acquittal of the accused, valuable five years of the man
would have been lost due to a mistake which could well have been
avoided by a Judge of the experience and knowledge of the Presiding
Officer.” 3 Surendra Nath, the advisor to the planning commission,
while lauding the role of the fast track courts in the country since
their inception has also agreed that the conviction rate has gone up.
Thus, the question arises whether these courts have been set up with
the sole intention of increasing the conviction rate in the country.
Conclusion
All recent efforts to bring in reforms in the criminal justice system
actually put the justice at stake. The Malimath committee report wanted
to overhaul the entire criminal justice system and also change the
basic time tested principles of criminal jurisprudence. The most recent
committee appointed by the UPA government to bring in a policy paper on
the criminal justice system in the country has member who were part of
the Malimath committee and are still talking on the similar lines as
the Malimath committee report. The proposed police reforms if
implemented fully may turn the police in this country into a mafia
without any control from the government. Similar is the problem with
the fast track courts. If the government is really concerned for speedy
justice to victims and the accused the change has to come from within
that forms the root cause of the problem. The fast track court is not
only a knee jerk reaction to a huge problem of years but it's also a
cosmetic solution which will never cure the ailments of the system.
Endnotes
1. Frontline, July 2001
2. mah.gov.nic.in
3. MANU/MH/0628/2006
http://www.combatlaw.org/information.php?article_id=1113&issue_id=39
© Combat Law Publications Pvt Ltd
