Initial set-back

In fact, when it is launched, the advocates were furious. The Andhra Pradesh Bar Council challenged the scheme as unconstitutional and would not serve the purpose of achieving speedy justice. The petition was admitted the AP High Court granted stay on operation of fast track courts. The objections raised by the bar council to the fast track courts are legalistic, in the worst sense of the term. For instance, it nitpicks on the Finance Commission's observation that the expenditure on undertrials (estimated at Rs 20,000 per head per annum) would come down as the fast track courts speed up the disposal of their cases. Talking in rather lofty terms, the bar council argued that a court is meant only to administer justice and not to reduce jail expenditure. It also objects to the appointment of the presiding officers from among retired judges on two-year contracts. The bar council contended that the contractual judges of the fast track courts will be less accountable than the permanent judges of the regular courts.
The AP High Court held that the scheme prima facie suffered from serious legal and constitutional infirmities and stayed its operation. The Union government challenged the High Court's order through a Special Leave Petition (SLP) in the Supreme Court. The SLP contended that the High Court had committed an error of law in virtually allowing the writ petition through an ex-parte order on a mere prima facie view of the legality of establishing fast track courts without specifying the grounds. On May 2, a Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice B.N. Kirpal and Justice Ruma Pal, stayed the High Court's order. Later, another Supreme Court Bench, consisting of the Chief Justice of India (CJI) Justice A.S. Anand, Justice R.C. Lahoti and Justice Doraiswamy Raju, while hearing on a case on the status of undertrials in various States, regretted that the scheme of fast track courts, despite its crucial nature, was not brought to the notice of the CJI before the government made an announcement in that regard. The Judges observed that the funds released to the State governments to set up fast track courts should have been placed at the disposal of the Chief Justices of the 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 observed that if the identification of the cases that the fast track courts should try and the areas they should cover was left to the discretion of the Chief Justices of the High Courts concerned the scheme would have worked better. The Bench also wondered how retired District Judges could be recruited as presiding officers and under whose jurisdiction they would be. Its critical observations have led to dismay, as Law Ministry sources claimed that the draft of the scheme had been sent to all States and the Chief Justices of all High Courts and it was introduced only after effective consultation with the judiciary at every level. These sources also claimed that only the Chief Justices of the High Courts would select Judges for appointment in fast track courts.
Present Union Minister for Law Mr H R Bharadwaj, in response to a TV interview stated that by March 2004, 1400 such courts were operational, and 8 lakh cases were handed over to them, out of which a decision was given in 3.8 lakh cases. But he says this is too low a strike rate, and the reason for that is that the fast track courts are run by judges without the passion for justice. "Instead of retired judges, younger blood should be given a chance. They can get promotions and will have a future," said Bharadwaj. He has also promised to start filling vacancies in the various courts across the country within a few weeks.