Fast track courts, a non-starter: SC

By Our Legal Correspondent

NEW DELHI, MAY 2. The Supreme Court today, in its observations - made during the hearing of a public interest petition (on the plight of undertrial prisoners in various States) - said that the scheme by which ``fast track courts'' were set up appeared to be a non- starter and that it did not seem to be all that attractive.

The Chief Justice of India (CJI), Dr. A.S. Anand, Mr. Justice R.C. Lahoti and Mr. Justice Doraiswamy Raju were on the bench.

The bench also indicated that such a crucial scheme (concerning the judiciary) was not brought to the notice of the CJI before it was announced by the Government.

The bench observed that the monies which were released to the State Governments for setting up of the `fast track courts' should have been placed at the disposal of the CJIs of the concerned High Courts for proper utilisation.

``If you are going to build buildings and then select judges, the `fast track courts' would become absolutely `slow- track','' the bench said.

The bench made these oral observations when the solicitor-general (SG), Mr. Harish Salve, submitted that when the Government was trying to speed up the process of solving the huge backlog of cases before lower courts by the `scheme', the AP High Court had stayed the setting up of fast track courts on the question of selection of presiding officers.

The bench in its observations took exception to the Finance Commission releasing Rs.500 crores for setting up of ``fast track courts''.

The question of appointment of retired District Judges as presiding officers (of `fast track courts') need also to be considered.

The Bench asked as to how the retired district judges be recruited as presiding officers and under whose jurisdiction, they would work.

The SG said that the centre was trying to speed up the process of establishing over 1700 `fast track courts' for a limited period of five years or less to solve the problem of huge arrears of cases.

The bench observed that if the discretion was left to the CJs of the concerned HCs regarding the identification of cases and areas for the `fast track courts', the scheme would have worked much better.

When the SG pleaded that the Apex Court could, on the judicial side, take up the matter and frame a suitable scheme, so that the challenges to the scheme could be eliminated, the Bench observed that ``it is very easy to pass on the buck, the government first creates a mess and then requests the judiciary to clean it up.''

The government had intended to set up 1734 `fast track courts' by April 1, 2001, but as on date only 446 could come into existence. Another 1003 such courts would be set up by June end, it is said.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : 'Law soon to regulate building activities'
Next     : Annulment of marriage: onus of proof on
           complainant, says SC