In a diverse and culturally rich country like India, traditional knowledge is a significant asset to the country. Hence, there is a need to claim intellectual property rights (IPR) for this asset to prevent it from being misappropriated by other nations. This law article tells you about claiming intellectual property rights for India’s traditional knowledge.

Indian Traditional Knowledge – an Introduction

Traditional knowledge, as the name indicates, is the body of indigenous practices especially relating to medicine, agriculture, etc., that has been passed down through generations.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) defines it as “knowledge, know-how, skills, and practices that are developed, sustained, and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of its cultural or spiritual identity.”

Traditional knowledge has great significance in scientific developments taking place in the contemporary world. For instance, several medicines of Ayurveda, like turmeric, Ashwagandha, etc., are packaged and sold in US and European markets. If India was able to patent the traditional knowledge relating to these medicinal plants, then the country and the indigenous people benefit tremendously. Also, this would prevent the exploitation and commercialisation of traditional knowledge without consulting the stakeholders and bearers of such knowledge.

There have been several cases where the West has tried to claim patents for Indian traditional knowledge, and the nation had to fight long legal battles against it. However, it is high time that India takes some proactive measures rather than just reactive ones to protect its vast traditional knowledge.

Intellectual Property Rights and Traditional Knowledge

Intellectual property rights (IPR) are the rights conferred upon the creators of an idea to use it exclusively and to prevent others from replicating it. It is an intangible asset of great importance in the current era.

IPR usually includes patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets.

The idea of IPR for traditional knowledge was first raised in the Convention for Biological Diversity (CBD). Article 8(j) of the convention states that all member countries have to enact a law to protect traditional knowledge and innovations. The law has to ensure that there is an equitable sharing of benefits to indigenous people when traditional knowledge is used for commercial purposes. Such commercial use should always happen with the consent of all stakeholders. This can only be done when the indigenous community has IP rights over their traditional knowledge.

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) has time and again recommended a sui generis (of its own kind, unique) system for ensuring IP rights for traditional knowledge. The organization has published a comprehensive booklet on the traditional knowledge that has been granted IP rights so far. This includes trademarks for potatoes in Peru and Taita baskets in Kenya, copyrights for ethnic fabric designs in Ghana, etc. IPR for traditional knowledge covers both traditional skills and know-how as well as cultural expression (dances, rituals, practices).

IP Protection for Traditional Knowledge in India

India is still taking baby steps to ensure intellectual property rights for traditional knowledge. It is a signatory to several conventions on the protection of traditional knowledge, and some provisions in the IP laws of India address this issue. The country has also constituted a database and classification system to document traditional knowledge for IP purposes.

Conventions on Traditional Knowledge

Even before municipal laws were evolved regarding IP protection for traditional knowledge, there were several conventions in the international arena advocating for such protection. Some important conventions are mentioned below.

Convention on Biological Diversity

Article 8(j) of the Convention for Biological Diversity deals with maintaining and preserving traditional knowledge and techniques with due cooperation from its holders. It also talks about evolving a method of equitable benefit sharing of the products of traditional knowledge.

On the other hand, Article 10(c) deals with the allocation of biological resources for traditional processing and techniques.

Article 15(5) states that traditional knowledge relating to genetic resources can only be used with the consent of the communities involved.

Article 17 relates to the exchange of information regarding traditional knowledge, and Article 18(4) makes it obligatory for member states to take measures to protect traditional knowledge.

Nagoya Protocol, 2010

The protocol is essentially a widening of the Convention on Biological Diversity. India ratified the protocol in 2012. It elaborates on equitable benefit sharing for traditional communities when there is commercial utilization of traditional knowledge.

The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture

This is also known as the seed treaty and deals with the protection of traditional knowledge relating to agricultural produce. Article 9(2)(a) of the treaty provides for the preservation of traditional knowledge relating to plant genetic resources, while Article 9(2)(b) deals with equitable benefit sharing.

TRIPS Agreement (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights)

Article 1 of the agreement allows member nations to provide any level of extended IP protection as the country deems fit. This allows all nations to formulate measures for the extended protection of traditional knowledge.

United Nations Conference on Protection of Trade and Development (UNCTAD)

This conference has created a global forum for discussions on traditional knowledge and also made significant recommendations on its protection.

Legislations for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge

India has no specific laws for protecting traditional knowledge, but the existing IP laws have some provisions relating to it.

Patent Act of 1970

Section 25 and 64 of the Act deals with the revocation of patents based on traditional knowledge.

Copyrights Act of 1957

Section 31A of the Act states that copyright may be granted to any unpublished work. This might also include traditional knowledge. However, copyright is only a temporary protection and is not of much use if granted to traditional knowledge that lasts for eternity.

TKDL (Traditional Knowledge Digital Library)

The TKDL is an Indian digital repository of traditional knowledge. It contains almost 34 million pages of documented traditional knowledge. It is available in English, German, French, Japanese, and Spanish.

TKDL was a collaborative project by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR); the Ministry of Science and Technology; the Department of Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, and Homeopathy (AYUSH); and the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare. It is headed by the CSIR.

The objectives of constituting such a database are to provide information to patent granting offices and to prevent the misappropriation of traditional Indian knowledge. Several patent offices, like the European Patent Office, the Indian Patent Office, the German Patent Office (October 2009), the United States Patent and Trademark Office, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office, and IP Australia, have access to this digital library.

TKRC (Traditional Knowledge Resource Classification)

The TKRC is a system of classification linked to the International Patent Classification (IPC) system. It is specifically for Indian medicine and Unani products. It systematically classifies plants and the medicines derived from them through certain codes. This allows for a catalogue of traditional knowledge related to medicine.

Case Studies Illustrating the Necessity of IPR for Traditional Knowledge

These case studies explain how easily foreign companies claimed IP rights over Indian traditional knowledge while the parent country remained in ignorance. It also describes the long-drawn legal battles that the country had to fight to reclaim its traditional knowledge resource. It is a brief analysis of how it is better to be proactive rather than reactive when it comes to protecting your resources.

Patent for Healing Properties of Turmeric

Suman K Das and Hari Har P Cohly, two Indian American scientists of the University of Mississippi Medical Centre, filed for a patent for the healing properties of turmeric. They were claiming that they had discovered the healing properties of the plant when it has been common knowledge in India for time immemorial. In an absurd turn of events, they were granted patent rights by the US Trade and Patents Office in March 1995. Finally, the CSIR had to apply for re-examination, and the patent was revoked.

Patent for Using Neem Oil as a Fungicide

Indian farmers have been using neem oil as a natural fungicide and pesticide for ages. However, W.R. Grace and the Department of Agriculture, USA, filed a patent for a neem oil-derived pesticide in the European Patent Office. A grace patent was granted for it.

According to the US code, a grace patent may be accorded for anything that is modified from a natural product. Foreign knowledge is not adequate to revoke a grace patent unless it is published.

Hence, the legal representation by the New Delhi-based Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE), in cooperation with the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements (IFOAM) and Magda Aelvoet, former green Member of the European Parliament (MEP), was not accepted.

This led to a great hue and cry among Indian agriculturalists and researchers led by Dr. Shiva. Following the incessant protests, the patent was revoked, and the appeal filed against the revocation was dismissed.

Patent for Basmathi Rice

An American company, Rice Tec, received a patent for 15 varieties of aromatic Basmathi rice from the US Patent and Trade Office. This was contested by India in a three-year legal battle. Finally, the patent was revoked.

Conclusion

The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) states that a country must take both positive as well as defensive measures to safeguard its traditional knowledge. India has taken a lot of positive measures, but it lacks in its defensive measures.

The former Justice Vijendar Jain, in his speech at the Asia Pacific Jurist Association, has recommended a sui generis (of its own kind, unique) law as a defensive mechanism to safeguard traditional knowledge. The reasons for a sui generis law are as follows:

• Traditional knowledge is usually unpublished, and hence granting copyrights to it under the existing laws is difficult. Moreover, copyright is temporary.
• Copyrights, trademarks, and patents are usually granted to individuals and entities, but traditional knowledge is usually collectively owned.
• Existing IP laws allow for modifications or innovations on the protected idea. Such a modification is not IPR infringement. However, much extensive protection should be granted to traditional knowledge.

Considering all this, a separate law to claim intellectual property rights for traditional knowledge is the need of the hour.

Read Next: Does India Have a Legitimate Claim to Bring Back the Kohinoor Diamond?

Claiming Intellectual Property Rights for Indian Traditional Knowledge
Jenitha Dharshini

India is a secular country, meaning the government keeps its distance from religion. However, it is also a very diverse nation. People from major religions, like Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, Jains, Parsis, Buddhists, Jews, etc., live here.

Religion plays a vital role on all social, economic, and cultural fronts. So, the government is bound to regulate and interfere in the realm of religious coherence to maintain peace and order in society. However, it should do so while preserving the secular ideals of the country and the religious freedom guaranteed by the Constitution.

This law article primarily focuses on the extent to which the government can interfere in the affairs and administration of religious institutions in India.

What Are Religious Institutions?

Section 2(f) of the Religious Institutions Act, 1988 defines a “religious institution” as an institution for the promotion of any religion or persuasion. It includes any place or premises used for public religious worship by whatever name or designation known. This definition is wide and includes Temples, Churches, Mosques, Mutths, Synagogues and Viharas.

The Concept of Secularism in India

Secularism is the separation of religion from the political, democratic, social and economic aspects of the state. However, it can have multiple meanings across the world. This is because secularism can vary according to the local conditions of each country.

For instance, in countries like France and USA, secularism is the complete elimination of religion from politics. The government has no say in religious affairs.

But in a country like India, it is not easy to separate religion from the state. Religion and spirituality have always been part and parcel of Indian society. The framers of the Indian Constitution were well aware of this. They also knew that in order to carry out certain social reforms in independent India, the government had to interfere in religion.

For example, when they incorporated Article 17, they knew that the government would have to interfere in Hinduism to abolish untouchability. Hence, Indian secularism is not secularism in the strict sense. It is the principled distance of religion from the state and not a strict separation of religion from the state. This means that there is more scope for the government to interfere in religion and religious institutions in India in comparison to that of countries like the USA and France.

Does Government Interference in Religious Institutions Violate the Religious Freedom Guaranteed by the Constitution?

The Constitution of India has guaranteed individuals the freedom of religion as a Fundamental Right. Articles 25 to 28 deal with religious freedom. Article 25 and Article 26 deal with the freedom to practice one’s religion and the freedom to administer religious affairs. Any government intervention in religious institutions which infringes upon these rights will be unconstitutional.

Article 25

Article 25 states that everyone is free to profess, propagate and practice their religion. However, this right is not absolute. It is subject to the following limitations:

I. Public Morality, Health and Public Order

For instance, the government ordered the closure of all religious institutions following the outbreak of COVID in the light of public health.

II. Exceptions in Article 25(2)

The first exception in Article 25(2) allows the government to make a law regulating any financial, political or other secular activity associated with religion. The administration of religious institutions falls within the ambit of this exception. Hence, the state is empowered to make a law regulating the administration of religious institutions, including the appointment of a board, trust or officials to manage the institution. It can also call for a report on the funds owned by the institution and appoint officials to manage and audit such funds.

In Shri Jagannath Temple Puri Management Committee vs Chintamani Khuntia, AIR 1997 SC 3839, it was held that:

“All the activities, in or connected with a temple, are not religious activities. The management of a temple or maintenance of discipline and order inside the temple can be controlled by the State by proper legislation. A law that is enacted for taking over the management of a temple is not violative of Article 25 or Article 26 of the Constitution.”

Another exception to religious freedom in Article 25(1) is provided in Article 25(2)(b). This exception allows the government to make any law for social reform and welfare and to throw open Hindu temples to all. Such a law will not be invalid even if it restricts religious freedom in Article 25.

Article 26

Article 26 provides freedom to establish religious institutions, manage religious affairs and acquire and administer property for religious purposes. However, the freedom to manage religious affairs does not include the freedom to manage religious institutions. It only includes the freedom to decide the rituals, ceremonies and practices that are to be followed. Moreover, the government is also empowered to acquire land belonging to religious institutions for public purposes like laying down roads, railways etc. Hence, the freedom to acquire and administer property is also not absolute.

Laws That Allow Government Control Over Religious Institutions

There are laws by the central as well as state govt governments that exercise control over religious institutions.

Laws by the Centre

The parliament has enacted certain laws to bring about uniformity in the administration of religious institutions all over the country. Here are some of them.

1. The Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959

This Act was originally passed in British India in 1927. The British realised that adopting a policy of non-interference in religion was not feasible in a country like India. Mismanagement and misappropriation of temple funds were becoming very common in that era. Hence, the government tried to curb such activities by passing this Act. However, the application of this Act was restricted to the Madras region alone. The Madras region covered a major portion of South India in the British era. The Act currently applies to the state of Tamil Nadu alone.

2. The Wakf Act of 1995

A Wakf is a perpetual dedication of a property owned by a Muslim for religious or charitable purposes. It is managed by a person known as Mutawalli.

The Wakf Act was passed to regulate Wakfs, the transfer of Wakf property and its funds. The Act consists of nine chapters. Chapter II mandates state governments to carry out a survey and maintain lists of Wakfs.

Chapter IV deals with the establishment of the Wakf board and the appointment of its members. Chapters VI and VII specifically talk about the finances and audit of Wakfs. Chapter VIII enlists the remedies available if there is a contravention of the Act. Section 96 states that the central government has powers to regulate the secular activities of the Wakf. Hence, the Act provides for effective government control over Wakfs without infringing upon Articles 25 and 26.

Laws by the States

Almost every state has a law to regulate religious institutions. Some of them are discussed below:

1. The Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act of 1959

As compared to other states, the direct control by the state in Tamil Nadu is of the highest order. This state control is through government officers. All such officers, like commissioners, hold vast powers with regard to the administration of Hindu religious institutions.

2. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1987

Chapter III of the Act deals with the provisions relating to the administration and management of charitable and Hindu religious institutions and endowments.

In Digyadarshan R.R. Varu vs the State of Andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Amendment Act of 1966 was held to be constitutionally valid.

In Gedela Satchidananda Murthy vs D.C., Endowments, it was held that the amended Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act of 1987 is constitutionally valid.

3. The Rajasthan Public Trusts Act of 1959

Under this Act, the state government is empowered to appoint an officer known as Devasthan Commissioner. The state can also appoint Assistant Devasthan Commissioners and other subordinate officers and servants. An advisory board called the “Rajasthan Public Trust Board” is constituted to monitor the functions of Devasthan Commissioners.

4. Maharashtra Public Trusts Act of 1959

This Act was passed to regulate all religious institutions within the state. It defines a religious institution as any premise devoted exclusively to worship. It then deals with the appointment of Charity Commissioners, Deputy, Assistant and Joint Charity Commissioners who monitor the functioning of religious institutions.

5. The Shri Jagannath Temple Act of 1955

This Act came into force only in 1960. It transferred most of the administrative functions to the Shri Jagannath Temple Managing Committee constituted by the government. Only nominal functions remain with the royal family of the Raja of Puri.

6. The Kerala Madrasa Teachers Welfare Fund Act of 2019

This Act was passed very recently to regulate the salaries and pensions of teachers in Madrasas. It is currently under challenge in the High Court of Kerala.

Case Law

The Commissioner, Hindu Religious Endowments, Madras vs Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar of Sri Shirur Mutt, AIR 1954 SC 282

In this case, it was held that in the case of a religious trust or institution under a trust, it is to be ensured that religious trusts and institutions are properly administered. The state can control the secular administration of religious institutions, and such an object must be enunciated in the legislation that enables state control. In such circumstances, the state must ensure that the income of the endowments attached to the religious institutions are properly used and duly appropriated for the purposes for which they were founded or exist.

This was also the case where the doctrine of essential religious practices was first suggested. This means that only those practices that form an integral part of a religion are to be protected under Articles 25 and 26. Those that are not can be regulated by the government.

Conclusion

It is evident that the Constitution of India, along with other central and state legislations, allow government interference in religious institutions. However, Articles 25 and 26 act as watchdogs to prevent excessive government control, which may destroy the essence of the religion itself.

For instance, the government may regulate the appointment of servants and priests to a temple, but it can not dictate how the priest should conduct rituals and ceremonies.

Hence, government interference in religious institutions is allowed. But the government should always remember that secularism and religious freedom should also be preserved.

Read Next:
1. Offences Relating to Religion Under IPC
2. What Are the Differences Between Sin and Crime?
3. What Is the Places of Worship Act, 1991 and Its Objectives?

Government Interference in Religious Institutions of Secular India
Jenitha Dharshini

Fast Track Courts were constituted in India to ensure speedy justice. However, Fast Track Courts are reduced to mere paper tigers due to a lack of funds, staff and institutional framework. This article is a narrative of the history of Fast Track Courts, their functioning and failings.

“Justice delayed is justice denied.” With this above motto in mind, India’s central and state governments have been very active in constituting Fast Track Courts (FTC). Fast Track Courts deal with specific offences like sexual offences, cheque dishonour etc., in a short period of time. They expeditiously dispose of cases and help in clearing the immense backlog in the Indian judiciary.

As on December 2022, there are 764 Fast Track Courts dealing with sexual offences, including 411 exclusive POCSO Courts in 28 states & UTs. These courts have disposed of more than 1,44,000 pending cases. During 2022-23 alone, the Centre released a total of Rs. 198.77 crores for funding the Fast Track Courts.

However, Fast Track Courts in India are plagued with several issues like lack of legislative backing and proper framework that must be addressed to ensure speedy justice.

Features of Fast Track Courts and How They Are Different From Normal Courts

The characteristic features of a Fast Track Court can best be understood by comparing it with a normal court:

1. A normal court does not operate with any target or deadline. However, Fast Track Courts generally have a target number of cases that it has to dispose of in a particular period.
2. A Fast Track Court is supposed to have all the witnesses in a case examined in a single trial. This is not the case with a normal court.
3. The jurisdiction of Fast Track Courts is restricted. For example, there are Fast Track courts specifically for POCSO offences. However, normal courts have wide jurisdiction over civil wrongs and criminal offences.
4. Issuing of summons and warrants is faster in Fast Track Courts than in normal courts.
5. Fast Track Courts do not postpone hearings or allow adjournments, but these are very common in normal courts.

History of Fast Track Courts in India

The most common misconception is that Fast Track Courts were introduced to deal with offences involving women and children. Though it is true that most of the FTCs today deal with such offences, they were initially introduced to deal with commercial offences and other minor criminal offences pending in Sessions Court. The evolution of FTCs in India can be traced through different time periods:

1. 2005-2012

The 11th Finance Commission recommended setting up Fast Track Courts in 2005. Following this, 1734 FTCs were constituted across the nation.

The 188th Law Commission report encouraged the government to set up Fast Track Courts dealing with commercial offences in every High Court.

The 213th Law Commission report of 2011 recommended the government to set up FTCs for cheque bounce cases.

However, after 2011, the fervour (passion/enthusiasm) of the central government in setting up Fast Tract Courts died down. Their funding was withdrawn, and several FTCs were shut down. The existing Fast Tract Courts had to make do with state funding, which was highly inadequate.

2. Post-2012

In December 2012, the horrific Nirbhaya rape case caused a stir in the country. People demanded that justice had to be swift for the rapists. This drew attention to the problems in India’s criminal justice system, including the heavy backlog of cases in Session Courts. Once again FTCs were the need of the hour.

The new cluster of Fast Tract Courts specialized in sexual offences relating to women and children. The Nirbhaya fund was set up to fund 1023 FTCs. Currently, Fast Tract Courts have become an essential part of the Indian judicial setup.

The Rationale Behind Fast Track Courts

There are several pros to Fast Track Courts. Some of the significant reasons for constituting such courts are given below.

1. Speedy Disposal of Cases

Fast Track Courts do not allow adjournment of cases. Even if they do allow for adjournments, they have a target period within which they have to dispose of a case or a target number of cases they have to dispose of within a specific period. This results in swift justice.

2. De-Clogging the Courts

As on March 19, 2023, 59,87,477 cases are pending in High Courts across India, as per the data collected by National Judicial Data Grid (NJDG). The backlog in the Sessions Courts and lower courts is a bigger problem. In summary, the Indian judiciary is immensely overburdened. The Fast Track Courts play an important role by drawing certain cases before themselves and thereby decongesting the courts.

3. A Remedy to the Undertrials

Undertrial prisoners are those who await trials and are yet to be convicted or acquitted. But the sad truth is that many of them remain in prison for a longer time as undertrials than if they had been convicted for the offence itself.

In the Rudul Shah case, the Supreme Court awarded exemplary damages to a man who remained in prison for 14 years longer than required. Such situations can be avoided if FTCs function with efficiency.

4. Commitment to Constitutional Rights and Ideals

The Supreme Court has reiterated time and again that the right to a speedy trial is a part of the right to life and liberty enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution.

Article 39A says that the state has to ensure that the country’s legal system promotes justice. These ideals and rights are brought into action through FTCs.

Fast Track Courts in Specific States

Certain states have taken a special interest in the setting up and running of Fast Track Courts. These include:

1. Karnataka

In December 2013, the Karnataka Government passed an executive order for the creation of Fast Track Courts to deal with offences against women. In 2012, special POCSO Fast Track Courts were constituted. These courts are headed by one presiding officer, who is usually a district judge and 37 support staff.

These courts have been very efficient in disposing of cases. However, the conviction rate is very low. There are certain procedural and substantiative difficulties as well. This includes:

• Lack of special training for the judges. For instance, even a civil judge can be appointed as a presiding officer of the FTC dealing with POCSO cases. In the absence of training, the judge might not be efficient in dealing with POCSO cases.
• Lack of victim support services.
• Lack of regular monitoring and performance evaluation.
• Lack of legislative backing as the courts were not constituted statutorily but through a government order.
• Higher chance of witnesses turning hostile as the trial is conducted in one single session.

2. Andra Pradesh

After the gang rape and murder of Dr Disha, the Andra Pradesh government started taking serious steps to ensure swift justice for rape victims and their families. As a result, the Disha Act of 2019 was passed.

This Act provided for Fast Track Courts that dealt with sexual harassment cases exclusively. The Act specifies a period of 21 working days to dispose of a case. This includes 7 days for investigation and 14 days for trial.

However, this Act has been severely criticized. Many feel that the government, in its zeal to ensure a speedy trial, has completely ignored fair trial. In Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Anr vs the State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court has held that the right to a fair trial is an intrinsic part of the right to life under Article 21. A trial conducted in 14 days is hardly a fair trial and may result in a gross miscarriage of justice.

3. Uttar Pradesh

Initially, the state of Uttar Pradesh was actively setting up Fast Track Courts. According to a government order in 2014, the government had ordered the setting up of 75 new Fast Track Courts across the state.

However, as per current statistics, Uttar Pradesh tops the list of states that have pending cases in the Fast Track Courts. The state accounts for more than 70 per cent of the 13.81 lakh pending trials in Fast Track Courts in cases of heinous crimes against women, children and senior citizens. This could be due to a lack of financial support and monitoring by the government.

Effectiveness of Fast Track Courts in Delivering Speedy Justice

It can safely be said that Fast Track Courts are ideal for speedy disposal and de-clogging of the backlog of cases. However, whether justice is delivered is entirely another issue.

The infamous Best Bakery case is an example of how a trial can be speedy, but still, justice may not be delivered. In this case, before a Fast Track Court, 21 accused who burnt people alive during the Gujarat riots were put to trial. The court delivered judgement within 44 days resulting in the acquittal of all the accused. This case was later taken up by the High Court, where the decision was reversed, and subsequently, an appeal was lodged before the Supreme Court. The apex court severely condemned the manner in which the proceedings were conducted by the Fast Track Court and stated that there had been a ‘gross miscarriage of justice’.

Hence, the effectiveness of Fast Track Courts varies across the country and can still be improved in many ways.

Suggestions for Reforming Fast Track Courts

Fast Track Courts face several impediments to their functioning. Some of them include:

1. The Lack of Legislative Backing

If Fast Track Courts were constituted by a statute rather than by administrative actions, that would solve most of its problems. This is because the statute would have provisions for funds to the FTCs, a framework for its functioning, a complete regulation of procedural and substantiative laws applied by the FTCs and a scheme for the appointment of presiding officers and support staff to the courts.

This would completely curb any arbitrary appointment or judgements by the Fast Track Courts and will bring them in line with the mainstream judiciary.

2. Financial and Infrastructure Constraints

Initially, the Centre took up the financing of FTCs, but later the funding was left to the discretion of the state governments. The state governments started funding the FTCs on and off. This meant there was never a steady flow of funds to the Fast Track Courts. This has resulted in understaffing or a lack of support staff, investigators and victim support services.

This has also resulted in the shutting down of several FTCs. In Brij Mohan vs UOI, the Supreme Court itself allowed the government to shut down 100 Fast Track Courts due to lack of funds.

3. Lack of Training

As already mentioned, the presiding officers of Fast Track Courts are drawn from all fields of the judiciary. This means that even a civil judge may preside over a POCSO case. He can not do so without proper training. This has led to many absurd judgements being passed by the Fast Track Courts.

A Fast Track Court in Belgaum refused to consider medical evidence of forcible sexual intercourse by stating that the victim had had consensual sexual intercourse with her husband earlier that day.

In yet another shocking judgement, a Fast Track Court in Bangalore carried out the investigation of a crime for two years after the actual instance. All this can be put down to untrained presiding officers and staff.

Conclusion

The Fast Track Courts in India are a great way of supplementing our existing hierarchical setup of the justice delivery system and are quite successful in clearing the backlog of cases. However, the courts have to be refined and reformed to best cater to the interest of justice.

Read Next:
1. All About the International Criminal Court
2. Top 6 Major Flaws in the Current Indian Judicial System

Fast Track Courts in India – Evolution, Features, Effectiveness, and More
Jenitha Dharshini