Legal Narrative
Abstract:
The National Crimes Records Bureau (NCRB) published a report named “Crimes in India” indicating a tremendous increase in the number of complaints filed under sexual offences against women and children in 2021-2023. The report says over 13.2 lakhs and 4.89 lakhs cases lodged under Crimes against women and children in three years, represents under-reporting, not the actual suffering. The public Outcry, Judicial interventions, rigorous due process, statutory Evolutions like the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018, POCSO Act and the Supreme Court’s directions in Suo Motu Writ (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019, seek to ensure speedy and victim-centric justice for victims of sexual abuse. This leads to the establishment of Fast Track Courts for Sexual offences in India representing the institutional response to systematic delays in adjudicating sexual offences. This article interrogates the constitutional guarantees of fair trial protection given under Article 21, the victim protection and the functioning of this institutional response as the blend of parliamentary legislation and judicial activism.
Keywords:
POCSO Act, Due Process, Article 21, victim-Centric jurisprudence and procedure, Fair Trial, Assembly-Line Mechanism
Introduction: The Promise and the Peril of Speed
Rights entitled to an individual are of no use, if there is no remedy, and the same thing happens when there is a delay in rape and POCSO trials, which leads to secondary victimisation. The Supreme Court in Suo Moro Writ Petition (Crl.) No. 1 of 2019, directed fast disposal of POCSO cases, prompting the Parliament to establish Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) financed by Nirbhaya Fund1in 2019. These Courts were supposed to complete time bound trials of rape and POCSO cases where the tighter investigation, trial timelines for sexual offences and trial within one year as far as possible with presumption of innocence, proper cross- examination, quality of investigation and forensics. Victim-Centric procedure like in-camera trial, no face-to-face confrontation with accused, child friendly courts, identity protections, were a part of the same.
Although report says Indian Courts face a growing backlog of rape and POCSO cases, increased to 4.17 lakh by the end of 2022.2 However, the data of Press Information Bureau (PIB)3records disposal rate of 109 %. Despite these high individual disposal efficiencies, overall pendency is still a structural challenge because of fresh filings. This creates a paradox between 109 % disposal rate and roughly 2.45 lakh pending cases, where the institutional success is measured through quantitative disposal quota and failing the purpose of the Indian justice system.
Legislative and Institutional Architecture
The Fast-track adjudication for sexual offences emerged from iterative legislative interventions and Judicial activism, designed to override the standard inertia of Criminal Justice of India. The traditional criminal justice system revolves around heavy pendency, prison overcrowding with high undertrial population and deep
seated systematic delays. The 2012 Delhi Gang-rape case, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 and 2018, and public outcry ignited the establishment of FTSC for fast disposal of cases related to sexual offences, on October 2,2019. Criminal Law (Amendment) Acts (2013 & 2018)4stiffened minimum punishments, death penalties for child rape (Sections 376DA5, 376DB IPC6/ Section 65(2) BNS7), and codified strict outer limits for investigations (Section 173(1A)8(2 months) CrPC / Section 193(3)9 BNSS) and trials (2 months for completion of inquiry/trial under Section 309 CrPC10 / Section 346 BNSS11). POCSO Act, 2012 (Amended 2019) has some provisions like Section 3512 which explicitly commands that evidence of the child shall be recorded within 30 days of taking cognizance, and the trial shall be completed within one year. The FTSC Centrally Sponsored Scheme (2019–2026) formulated under the Department of Justice, funded via the non-lapsable Nirbhaya Fund to set up 790+ dedicated FTSCs, including exclusive POCSO (e-POCSO) Courts.
The Tussle between Speed and Constitutional Due Process
“Justice delayed is Justice denied” is only half the problem, while secondary victimization, erosion of evidence, hostile witness and severe psychological suffering of survivors (especially children) due to prolonged and costly litigation remain the main issue.
The Supreme Court for the first time in Hussainara Khatoon case13 declared the right to a speedy trial is an integral part of right to life and liberty under Article 21 reiterating it in Kadra Pahadiya case.14
Further, it held in A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak case15 affirming that right to speedy trial is an inherent component of Article 21, and it cannot be converted into a device that diminishes the basic fair trial.
• Tripartite arrangement
There is tripartite arrangement between Speed of disposing cases, Fair Trial under Article 21 and Protection of Victim Dignity, all equally important for an efficient Criminal Justice System and Protection of Individual’s rights otherwise it will devolve into Herbert Packer’s theory of “Assembly-Line Crime Control Model”16- the rapid, mechanical and impersonal processing of legal cases resembling a factory conveyor - belt where Speed and efficiency takes places over thoroughness and individual rights.
• The Peril of Truncated Cross- Examination.
In high pressure fast track adjudication, Judicial performance index heavily focused on quantitative disposal numbers can pressurise the Defence Counsel to restrict the scope of cross examination without sufficient preparation, complete electronic records of necessary cross - case documentation. The presence of statutory presumptions of guilt (Sections 29 and 30 of the POCSO Act17) creates severe structural hazards when trials are hurried.
Victim - Centric Procedure: Token or Efficient Protection
True victim - centric justice requires a courtroom environment designed to prevent secondary victimization, safeguarding dignity, aiming to protect the people who have experienced trauma, crime, or abuse that prioritizes their well being and autonomy over institutional trial.
• Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres (VWDC)
Physical confrontations in open court often inflict serious secondary psychological trauma on complainants, the Supreme Court in the present case18 mandating the establishment of dedicated Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres across all court complexes. The child or vulnerable witness must be separated from the visual sight and physical presence of the accused through two-way mirrors, digital audio-video feeds, or partition screens. Courtrooms must provide child-friendly waiting lounges, separate passway, and dedicated support facilities to eliminate pre-trial encounters with the accused or family members independently audited by organizations like Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy.
• Camera Proceedings and Confidentiality
Sections 327 CrPC19 / Section 371 BNSS20, and Section 37 POCSO Act21, mandate that trials concerning sexual offences must be conducted strictly in-camera. The Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh22, and in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India23 ruled non-compliance violates the victim's fundamental right to privacy under Article 21.
• Responsibility of Judicial Officer
Section 33(2)24 of the POCSO Act requires a Special Judge to carefully examine defence questions before they are put to a child witness to prevent intimidation. This protective filter can dilute legitimate questioning regarding contradictions, physical impossibilities, and prior conflicting statements if exercised mechanically.
• Interim Compensation
Victim-centric justice requires meaningful restorative outcomes. As per Section 357A CrPC25/ Section 396 BNSS26, the NALSA Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes (2018)27 and the POCSO Rules,202028, Special Courts have statutory authority to award interim financial relief to support immediate medical treatment, psychological therapy, and housing needs. However, institutional hesitation reduces restorative rehabilitation to an administrative afterthought, leaving victims economically and psychologically vulnerable because compensation is awarded after final delivery of judgement.
Critiques: A Political Gimmick - ground reality of the scheme
Every coin has two faces, similarly FTSCs have serious drawbacks along with its quantitative achievements. FTSCs were made to expedite trials for sexual offences but Legal experts, parliamentary panels, human rights advocates and organizations like Partners for Law in Development (PLD) have different opinion -shortage of judges and staffs as high number of vacant seats, FTSCs pull existing judicial officers from regular courts rather adding new causing massive backlogs in civil and criminal litigations.
They are ‘fast’ in name only, over 2.4 lakh cases are still pending due to lack of advanced cyber-forensics capacity, short - staffed DNA profiling laboratories and scarcity of public prosecutors. Many states fail to meet the POCSO mandates, lack crucial infrastructures like separate Vulnerable - witness deposition rooms, secure waiting room and video conferencing system.
Justice J.S. Verma Committee Report29 (2013) underscored that fast-track judicial stage is ineffective if police investigations, medical evidence collection, and forensic validation remain under-resourced.
A 2023 empirical assessment by the India Child Protection Fund (ICPF)30 titled ‘Justice Awaits’ revealed that several Indian states require 20-30 years to clear their existing accumulation of POCSO cases, irrespective of the ongoing creation of FTSCs, further stated the rate of new case filings regularly outpaces the annual disposal volume of operational FTSCs, creating structural backlogs.
Strategic Recommendations
Transforming Fast-Track Special Courts into institutions that deliver swift, fair, and victim-centric justice:
• The government needs to strengthen and demand accountability from the law-enforcing agencies in relation to adjudication of sexual offences cases. Otherwise, the fake filings and turmoil will continue due to absence of deterrence in the society, the criminals will become repetitive offenders.
• Appoint dedicated judicial cadre insulated from non-specialized criminal dockets and extraneous administrative responsibilities having guaranteed tenures of at least three years, accompanied by specialized training modules, Child- adolescent development and trauma-informed jurisprudence. Mandatory, periodic gender-sensitization and trauma
informed training for judges, police personnel, and defence counsels. • Active, non-adversarial management of cross-examination without infringing on the rights of the accused.
• States must establish dedicated Fast-Track Forensic Sub-Units within district-level medical colleges and civil hospitals. Establishing statutory timelines for submitting forensic and DNA profiling reports within 21 days of collection would prevent the primary cause of prolonged pre-trial detention and recurring trial adjournments.
• The mandates must be enforced through binding infrastructure audits. No court should operate FTSCs designation without access to a certified, fully operational VWDC equipped with direct video conferencing.
• Institutionalizing the "Support Person" Ecosystem, the POCSO Rules, 2020, directs every child victim is entitled to a trained, independent Support Person from the moment the FIR is registered through to final judgment. District Child Protection Units (DCPUs) and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) must maintain professional, properly compensated panels of social workers, child psychologists, and interpreters to ensure continuity of care, reducing witness attrition born of isolation and fear.
• High Courts must revise their evaluation criteria for FTSC judicial officers.
Conclusion: Moving from "Fast" Justice to "Fair and Effective" Justice
The central point of the Indian Justice System should be the actual justice with due process of law, fair trial and protection of individual’s rights not mere the disposal of cases. True justice is measured not just by how quickly a case is closed, but by how safely, fairly, and compassionately dignity is restored to the survivor while preserving the rule of law.
The constitutional credibility of Fast-Track Special Courts depends on a system that prioritizes speed at the expense of thorough evidentiary testing risks through wrongful convictions. True reform requires moving from rapid punishment to an integrated standard of "effective, fair, and restorative adjudication." By pairing procedural speed with due process safeguards, professionalized support networks, modern forensic infrastructure, and dignified courtroom environments, FTSCs can fulfil their constitutional mandate of fair and effective justice that respects the rights of the accused while fully honouring the dignity of the victim.
FOOTNOTES
* Stuti Priya, LLM. General, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh.
1 Press Info. Bureau, Gov’t of India, Fast Track Special Courts (Sept. 16, 2021),
https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1743231 .
2 National Crime Records Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs, Crime in India 2022 (2023) (court-disposal tables: cases pending trial at year-end under Penal Code, 1860, § 376 and the POCSO Act, 2012, combined figure of 4,17,673).
3 Press Info. Bureau, Ministry of Law & Justice, Government of India, 775 Fast Track Special Courts Functional Across 29 States/UTs; Centre Extends FTSC Scheme Till September 2026 (July 25, 2026), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2289464.
4 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, No. 22 of 2018.
5 § 376DA, The Indian Penal Code, Act No. 45 of 1860 (India).
6Id, § 376DB.
7 Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, No. 45 of 2023, § 65(2)
8 Code of Criminal Procedure, No. 2 of 1974, § 173(1A) (India).
9 Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, No. 46 of 2023, § 193(3) (India).
10 Supra note 8, § 309.
11 Supra note 9, § 346.
12 Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, No. 32 of 2012, § 35 (India).
13 Hussainara Khatoon v. Home Secretary, State of Bihar, (1980) 1 S.C.C. 81 (India).
14 Kadra Pahadiya v. State of Bihar, (1981) 3 S.C.C. 671 (India).
15 A.R. Antulay v. R.S. Nayak, (1992) 1 S.C.C. 225 (India).
16 Herbert L. Packer, Two Models of the Criminal Process, 113 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1 (1964); Herbert L. Packer, The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (Stanford Univ. Press 1968).
17 Supra note 12, §§ 29 – 30.
18 Smruti Tukaram Badade v. State of Maharashtra, M.A. No. 1852 of 2019 in Crl. A. No. 1101 of 2019 (India), orders dated Jan. 11, 2022 and Apr. 8, 2022.
19 Supra note 8, § 327.
20 Supra note 9, § 371.
21 Supra note 12, § 37
22 State of Punjab v. Gurmit Singh, (1996) 2 S.C.C. 384 (India); A.I.R. 1996 S.C. 1393. 23 22. Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 2 S.C.C. 703 (India) (judgment dated Dec. 11, 2018, W.P. (C) No. 565 of 2012).
24 Supra note 12, § 33(2).
25 Supra note 8, § 357A.
26 Supra note 9, §396.
27 National Legal Services Authority, Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/Other Crimes, 2018,
https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s32e45f93088c7db59767efef516b306aa/uploads/2025/04/202504081255775595.p df.
28 Press Info. Bureau, Ministry of Women & Child Development., Government of India, Special Courts Under POCSO Act (July 30, 2021), https://www.pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1740738.
29 Justice J.S. Verma et al., Report of the Committee on Amendments to Criminal Law (Jan. 23, 2013); Justice Verma Committee Report Summary, PRS Legislative Research, https://prsindia.org/policy/report summaries/justice-verma-committee-report-summary (last visited Sept. 25, 2026).
30 India Child Prot. Fund, Justice Awaits: An Analysis of the Efficacy of Justice Delivery Mechanisms in Cases of Child Sexual Abuse in India (2023),
https://www.childprotection.org.in/_files/ugd/3162a3_f8352cd24a1c4c2d8b04fc68a6dfd431.pdf.
