Important point
States cannot disown their responsibi­lity of providing speedy justice by pleading financial crunch in the scheme of Fast Track Courts.

Order

The Fast Track Courts Scheme was recommended by the XIth Finance Commission for setting up 1734 Courts to dispose of long pending cases, particularly on the criminal side in the subordinate judiciary. In that regard, Rs. 502.90 crores was allocated. The allocations recommended by the XIth Finance Commission covered the period 2000-01 to 2004-05.

2. By affidavit dated 8th July, 2004 filed on behalf of Union of India, this Court was informed that the matter of continuation of the above Scheme beyond five years has been taken up with XIIth Finance Commission. By the said affidavit, this Court was further informed that the Law Ministry had written a letter on 17.4.2003 to the Chairperson of the XIIth Finance Commission to favourably ­consider the proposals for the upgradation of judicial infrastructure including continuation of Fast Track Courts Scheme and also for creation of another 1500 Fast Track Courts of ­Magistrates for dealing with non-sessions cases and other criminal matters.­

3. A further affidavit was filed on behalf of Union of India on 13.10.2004 by which this Court was further informed that in the joint conference held at Vigyan Bhawan, New Delhi on 18.9.2004, attended by Chief Ministers and Chief Justices, it was resolved that Fast Track Courts Scheme be continued for a period of five years beyond 31.3.2005 and that Fast Track Magistrate Courts on similar lines be established.

4. The period of five years in terms of the said Scheme comes to an end on 31.3.2005. Till 28.3.2005, when the matter came before us, there was no indication as to whether the Fast Track Courts Scheme would continue beyond 31.3.2005. In the circumstances, we called upon the learned Solicitor General to look into the matter and inform the Court by 30.3.2005 as to whether the said Scheme would continue beyond 31.3.2005.

5. The learned Solicitor General stated before us that although the Union of India was keen to continue the Scheme, no financial sanction has been accorded by the XIIth Finance Commission. The learned Solicitor General of India, however, stated that out of the sanctioned allocation of Rs. 502.90 crores, till date the amount disbursed is Rs. 420.03 crores leaving an unspent amount of Rs. 82.87 crores, lying with the Central Government.

6. All accused are entitled to speedy justice in terms of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The question has been raised as to whether the State can deny its obligation to set up such number of courts as are necessary for fulfilling its constitutional obligation on the ground of financial constraints or otherwise. In this connection, it is relevant to note that in terms of the Annual Report of the Ministry of Law for the year 2003-04, the total number of pending cases runs into the figure of 2.27 crores (approximately). Further, in the year 2000, the XIth Finance Commission had allocated Rs. 502.90 crores under Article 275 of the Constitution to set up 1734 courts. The allocation stipulated time bound utilization. Suffice it to state at this stage that the funds have been utilized effectively. We have examined the statistics and the status reports submitted by the States which indicate success of the Scheme and time bound utilization of funds. Therefore, the question which arises for determination before us is of importance. Is it open to the State not to fulfill its obligation with regard to speedy justice on the basis of financial crunch, particularly when the judge-population ratio of 10.5 judges per 10 lakh people in India is the root cause for huge backlog of undecided cases.

7. In the case of All India Judges’ Asso­ciation & others v. Union of India & others reported in (2002) 4 SCC 247, this Court has held that an independent and efficient judicial system is one of the basic structures of our Constitution and if sufficient number of judges are not appointed, justice would not be available to the people, thereby undermining the basic structure. In the said judgment, it has been observed