When Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced that the government would set up fast-track courts for examination paper leak cases, it appeared to be the answer to one of the biggest demands surrounding the NEET UG controversy and alleged exam irregularities. Within hours, the Delhi High Court designated a special fast-track court at Rouse Avenue to hear offences under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. For lakhs of students who have seen exam papers leak one after another for years, the prime minister has promised faster justice. Convictions can deter crime.
However, the announcement and the developments that followed have prompted many to question whether fast-track courts actually deliver on their promise — and how they have performed so far. It is a pertinent question because India has been down this road before.
Fast track courts have been announced after moments of public outrage — from the 2012 Nirbhaya gang-rape case in Delhi to crimes against minors under the Pocso Act.
The latest announcement by PM Modi comes against the backdrop of sustained protests over examination paper leaks, with student groups arguing that delayed trials have emboldened organised cheating rackets.
The Prime Minister said those trying to destroy the future of India’s youth would not be spared, and that fast-track courts would ensure speedy punishment. The important and obvious question now is whether creating a set of fast-track courts would solve this problem that previous such mechanisms have only partly addressed.
WHAT ARE FAST TRACK COURTS?
Fast-track courts are not separate courts. They are ordinary courts assigned priority categories of cases with the objective of completing trials faster.
Under the centrally sponsored Fast-Track Special Courts scheme administered by the Department of Justice under the Union Law Ministry, funding is generally shared between the Centre and states in a 60:40 ratio, while state governments and High Courts jointly decide how many such courts are needed and oversee their functioning. That’s too many stakeholders. Fast-track courts currently handle cases such as rape, Pocso offences, and other notified categories that require expedited trials.
“Fast-track courts are like band-aids. They offer apparent relief, but not a real solution. Merely designating a court as fast-track does not make the process faster. The same legal procedure still applies,” Saurav Agrawal, an advocate at the Supreme Court of India told India Today Digital.
FAST-TRACK COURTS ARE FASTER THAN REGULAR COURTS, BUT NOT A MAGIC WAND
If the sole objective of the fast-track courts is to hear cases faster, they have delivered measurable gains. But what about convictions?
An analysis by the India Today Data Intelligence Unit (DIU) based on Department of Justice data found that in 2024, India’s 774 Fast Track Special Courts disposed of 85,595 of the 88,902 rape and child sexual abuse cases instituted during the year, a clearance rate of 96%. On average, each fast track court disposes of around 9.5 cases every month, almost three times the 3.3 cases handled by a comparable regular court.
These numbers suggest that the model improves judicial throughput. But faster disposal does not necessarily mean the justice system has become stronger. A 2024 research paper by Allahabad High Court advocate Priya Jaiswal in the International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation concluded that fast-track courts help reduce delays but cannot solve judicial backlog by themselves.
The same India Today DIU analysis found almost no relationship between how quickly a fast-track court completed trials and how often it convicted the accused. Punjab recorded one of the country’s highest conviction rates, while West Bengal, Jammu and Kashmir, Andhra Pradesh and even Delhi reported much lower rates despite years of dedicated fast-track courts. Some states concluded trials relatively faster but they convicted few accused.
It now remains to be seen how paper leak cases fare when they enter these specialised courts.
“Unlike rape and Pocso cases, which often depend on witness testimony and victim statements (which are vulnerable), paper leak cases would likely to rely more on documentary, digital and forensic evidence. This would make things concrete,” Supreme Court advocate Anubha Shrivastava Sahai told India Today Digital.
THE BIGGER BOTTLENECK IS OUTSIDE THE COURTROOM
The 2024 research paper by Priya Jaiswal in the International Journal of Legal Science and Innovation (IJLSI), which highlighted that fast-track courts don’t solve judicial backlogs, argued that shortages of judges, inadequate infrastructure, vacancies, limited staff and poor funding have constrained their performance in India.
It also noted that many fast track courts functioned with the same judges, procedures and administrative support as regular courts, meaning they inherit many of the same structural weaknesses.
Another study, published in the 2025 International Journal of Global Research Innovations & Technology by Udaipur-based law scholar Pooja Mandora, reached a similar conclusion.
It argued that inconsistent implementation across states, lack of dedicated infrastructure, shortage of judges, delayed investigations, absent witnesses and forensic delays continue to undermine the very purpose of fast-track courts. In Delhi, for example, the study cited data showing that fast-track courts disposed of cases in around 122 days on average, compared with 133 days in ordinary courts. The paper noted that there has been some improvement because of the fast-track courts, but they could hardly be called a transformation.
The research points to a pattern. Creating or designating a regular court is relatively easier. But, building an ecosystem that would allow that court to function efficiently is much tougher. Supreme Court advocate Tushar Agarwal precisely made this distinction, speaking to India Today Digital.
“Fast track courts have undoubtedly helped reduce delays in selected categories of cases, but they have not solved the structural problem of judicial backlog,” Agarwal said.
“Creating a dedicated courtroom without proportionately increasing the number of judges, prosecutors, court staff and forensic capacity is akin to opening a new lane on a highway that ultimately merges back into the same traffic bottleneck,” added Agarwal.
Agarwal argued that the biggest delays in India’s criminal justice system accumulate before a trial begins. Weak investigations, delayed forensic reports, repeated summons, absent witnesses, and vacancies of judges and prosecutors slow down cases at every stage. Unless the entire chain works within predictable timelines, Agarwal said, a fast-track court risks becoming “fast track only in name”.
WHY SPEEDY JUSTICE DOES NOT ALWAYS PRODUCE JUSTICE
The latest push for fast-track courts for paper leak also comes against the backdrop of an uncomfortable statistic.
An investigation by The Indian Express into major examination paper leak cases found that among 45 major paper leak cases over more than two decades, convictions have been exceptionally rare. Thousands of people were arrested, hundreds of charge sheets were filed, but only two cases ultimately resulted in convictions. And both the convictions came after long legal struggles stretching from 15 to 23 years.
While these cases were not dealt with by fast-track courts, they offer a reason for many students to remain sceptical about the judicial process. Apart from the slow pace of trials, prosecutions often fail because investigations collapse, evidence weakens over time, witnesses disappear or turn hostile, and cases drag on for years.
The 2024 IJLSI paper cited studies showing that many Fast Track Special Courts handling Pocso cases disposed of barely a fraction of their intended annual workload. Instead of the targeted 165 cases a year, the estimate placed average annual disposal closer to 28 cases per court.
But speed has not to be confused with justice. At the same time, quick trials do improve confidence in victims, reduce fatigue in witnesses, and preserve evidence better.
CAN PAPER-LEAK FAST-TRACK COURT BE ANY DIFFERENT?
The latest announcement made by the prime minister would have a different impact compared to other fast-track court initiatives, according to Supreme Court advocate Anubha Shrivastava Sahai.
Unlike cases of sexual offence that depend on witness testimony and victim evidence gathered over time, examination paper leaks often leave behind digital trails, financial transactions, electronic communications, seized documents and networks that investigators can piece together.
“This time, however, there is reason for optimism. Public pressure is unprecedented, the government is acting proactively, and there is sustained pressure on every stakeholder in the criminal justice system. Together, these factors raise hopes that the initiative may deliver better results,” Anubha Shrivastava Sahai told India Today Digital.
But whether that optimism translates into quick and meaningful convictions would ultimately depend on the quality of investigations and, equally importantly, on whether the current momentum is sustained. The ones that advocate Sahai underlined. Public outrage, political attention and institutional pressure often fade with time. If they do, the systemic bottlenecks could return. That is why some experts argue that real reform would not come only by notifying another court.
“The next generation of fast-track courts should be built around systemic reforms rather than temporary institutional arrangements. First, they should function with permanently sanctioned judicial posts instead of ad hoc appointments. Second, every stage (from investigation and forensic examination to framing of charges and recording of evidence) should operate under accountable timelines. Third, digital case management, electronic service of summons and virtual testimony should become routine rather than exceptional. Finally, fast-track courts should remain subject to rigorous judicial oversight to ensure that expedition never comes at the cost of fairness. The Constitution guarantees not merely speedy justice but fair justice, and the two objectives must always advance together,” Supreme Court advocate Tushar Agarwal told India Today Digital.
Will fast-track courts work this time? We have laid out how they have functioned over time, and why one could be hopeful this time around. Rest, time will tell.
– Ends
Published By:
Sushim Mukul
Published On:
Jul 25, 2026 12:10 IST
