PM Modi announced fast-track courts for paper leak cases amid student protests.
States and High Courts must coordinate to establish and operate these courts.
Fast-track courts prioritise specific offences but do not guarantee fixed trial deadlines.
Prime Minister Narendra Modi, in his first direct remarks linked to the Cockroach Janta Party’s protests over alleged irregularities in the NEET-UG examination, announced the government had decided to pursue fast-track trials to ensure punishment for those responsible for paper leaks.
“Nothing is more important than the welfare and future of our youth,” Modi said in a post on X.
“We have decided to set up fast-track courts to ensure swift and stringent punishment for those involved in paper leaks. Have directed the concerned authorities and officials to take all necessary steps in this regard. This continues our series of steps for safeguarding the interests of students. Those who try to harm the future of our youth will not be spared,” he added.
While the announcement signals the Centre’s intention to accelerate paper leak trials, the constitutional framework governing subordinate courts means that implementation will require coordination with state governments and High Courts.
What Are Fast-Track Courts?
Fast-track courts are courts designated to hear specific categories of cases on priority. There is no single central law that creates or uniformly governs all such courts across India.
The major policy push for them came from the Fourteenth Finance Commission, which recommended the establishment of 1,800 fast-track courts between 2015 and 2020.
These courts were proposed for the speedy trial of serious offences such as murder, kidnapping and extortion, as well as property disputes pending for more than five years.
The Commission also recommended prioritising cases involving vulnerable groups, including women, children, senior citizens, persons with disabilities and people suffering from terminal illnesses.
A separate category of fast-track special courts was created in 2019 after changes to criminal law and directions from the Supreme Court. These courts, supported partly through the Nirbhaya Fund, are dedicated to rape cases and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act.
Who Can Establish Them?
The establishment and functioning of subordinate courts, including fast-track courts, fall within the jurisdiction of state governments and Union Territory administrations, acting in consultation with their respective High Courts.
State governments are responsible for providing infrastructure, allocating funds and assessing how many courts are required based on local pendency and available resources.
The Centre can announce a policy, provide financial support and encourage states to create such courts. However, it cannot ordinarily establish and operate subordinate courts entirely on its own.
This means Modi’s announcement on paper leak cases will require cooperation between the Union government, state governments and the judiciary.
As of October 31, 2024, states and Union Territories had established 863 regular fast-track courts, compared with the Fourteenth Finance Commission’s recommendation of 1,800.
Who Appoints Judges and Staff?
The appointment of judicial officers to district and subordinate courts, including fast-track courts, is handled by state governments in consultation with the respective High Courts.
Articles 233 and 234 of the Constitution govern the appointment of district judges and other members of the state judicial service. Recruitment rules are framed by states in consultation with High Courts, read with the proviso to Article 309.
State governments and High Courts are also responsible for filling vacancies and appointing prosecutors and administrative staff.
Administrative control over district and subordinate courts lies with High Courts under Article 235. This includes supervision over postings, promotions, leave and the broader functioning of judicial officers.
Can a Court Be Created for One Case?
The creation of a special court for an individual case must satisfy Article 14, which guarantees equality before the law.
In the 1952 case of State of West Bengal vs Anwar Ali Sarkar, the Supreme Court struck down a law that allowed cases to be selected arbitrarily for special courts merely for a “speedier trial”.
The court held that speed alone was too uncertain a basis for classifying cases. A special court must be based on an objective distinction, such as the nature of the offence or the vulnerability of those affected.
However, courts have permitted special arrangements in major cases. A special court was established in Andhra Pradesh in 2010 for the Satyam accounting scandal. The Supreme Court also directed the creation of a court for the 2G spectrum case, which began functioning in 2011 at Delhi’s Patiala House Courts Complex.
Whether paper leak cases, including the NEET matter being heard at Delhi’s Rouse Avenue Courts, are transferred to specially designated courts will depend on subsequent government and judicial decisions.
How Fast Are Fast-Track Courts?
Fast-track courts do not guarantee litigants a fixed completion deadline. The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita recommends that trials should ideally conclude within two years, while trials involving sexual offences should be completed within two months.
Under the centrally sponsored fast-track special court scheme, each court is expected to dispose of 41 to 42 cases every quarter, or at least 165 cases annually.
As of January 2026, 862 regular fast-track courts and 774 fast-track special courts, including 398 exclusive POCSO courts, were functioning across the country.
In 2024, 88,902 cases were instituted in fast-track special courts and 85,595 were disposed of. On average, these courts cleared around 9.5 cases a month, compared with about 3.3 cases by regular trial courts of similar jurisdiction.
However, faster disposal has not eliminated pendency. More than 2.4 lakh cases remained pending in fast-track special courts by the end of 2023.
