The Supreme Court has directed States to address vacancies in fast track courts for gender-based crimes, citing severe delays in justice. The ruling pushes for urgent compliance with constitutional promises under Articles 15 and 21.

Fast Track Courts, Delayed Justice

On 25 July 2025, the Supreme Court of India expressed deep concern over the poor functioning of fast track courts (FTCs) handling sexual offences and crimes against women. Justice Renu Awasthi called the backlog a “betrayal” of the legislative promise made to survivors, especially after the Nirbhaya case led to stricter laws.

Despite dedicated courts and funding, survivors are still trapped in legal delays, often facing years-long trials that add layers of trauma.

Shocking Data Revealed by Women’s Rights Groups

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a coalition of women’s rights organizations revealed systemic negligence:

• Over 50% of FTCs established after 2013 and 2018 remain understaffed or vacant.

• Rape cases often continue for 2–3 years, defeating the purpose of “fast-track” trials.

• The National Commission for Women (NCW) reported widespread non-compliance with laws mandating:

  • Child-friendly courtrooms

  • Witness protection systems

This failure persists despite special funds and legal mandates specifically designed to ensure speedy and sensitive justice.

Supreme Court’s Tough Stand and Orders

The Bench issued clear instructions to State governments:

• Submit updated data on judicial vacancies and infrastructure.

• Set timelines for filling vacant positions in FTCs.

• Implement child-friendly facilities in courtrooms.

• Activate witness protection programs immediately.

Justice Awasthi reminded the States that dignity and access to justice are not “budget leftovers” — they are fundamental rights under Article 15 (protection from discrimination) and Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty) of the Constitution of India.

What Comes Next: The August Deadline

The matter will be heard again in August. If States fail to comply with the orders, the Court has indicated it may appoint special panels to monitor implementation directly.

Women’s rights activists and legal experts believe this ruling is a crucial turning point. It pushes for real-time justice, aligning strong laws with effective and compassionate courtroom processes.

Conclusion: Matching Laws with Action

India has made legal strides in the wake of brutal crimes like Nirbhaya, but enforcement lags behind. The Supreme Court’s intervention signals that gender justice must move beyond promises — it must be swift, sensitive, and survivor-centric.