HC grants time to Delhi govt to comply with order to set up more fast track, commercial courts

The Delhi High Court Thursday granted time to the Delhi government to comply with its earlier order for giving sanction to set up 18 more fast track and 22 commercial courts in the national capital. A bench of Chief Justice D N Patel and Justice C Hari Shankar was informed by the Delhi government's counsel that the matter was placed before the Cabinet and it requires some more time to finalize things.

The court granted time and listed the matter for further hearing on October 1. Delhi government's standing counsel (criminal) Rahul Mehra and advocate Anupam Srivastava said a Cabinet meeting was held recently but the proposal was deferred as the law minister had to attend another urgent meeting.

Mehra said soon another meeting will be convened and the matter will be taken up. The court was hearing a plea for making fast track courts (FTCs) a permanent feature at the district level.

Senior advocate Dayan Krishnan, appearing for the petitioner, said a single day's delay defeats the statutory provision and a sense of urgency was lacking in the government's action. The high court had earlier directed the Delhi government to comply with its May 16 order, failing which coercive action would be taken against the secretaries of the department concerned.

The bench had on May 16 directed the Delhi government to place before the Cabinet the requirement for 18 more fast track and 22 commercial courts and said the high court had sanctioned certain posts of judges for establishing a fast track and commercials courts, but the matter has been pending before the government for over two years. It had said once the high court made the demand, the government was duty bound to process it.

The court was informed on May 16 that as on the day, 6,414 cases under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act and over 2,800 cases of sexual offenses, particularly rape, are pending in Delhi. It had noted that the mandate of Section 309 of Criminal Procedure Code contemplates that cases of rape under the Indian Penal Code and of sexual offenses against minors under the POCSO Act should be decided in two months after the filing of the charge sheet.

Considering the pendency, the court had said it is "humanly impossible" unless an adequate number of courts are sanctioned. Petitioner Prag Chawla has contended that the Registrar General of the high court has made representations to authorities to make FTCs a permanent feature by sanctioning more posts of judges and ancillary staff, but till date, no action has been taken.

The petition, filed through advocate Sumit Chander, has claimed that FTCs at the level of additional district or session judge (ADJ/ASJ) were being run on ad hoc or temporary basis and the Supreme Court in 2012 had directed that either they be discontinued or made permanent. The court had noted that under the Commercial Courts Act, the state is bound to create these courts and dispose of the commercial disputes and that the demand for 22 commercial courts is still pending with the government.

Chawla has said that after the apex court's decision, the high court had sent a letter in July 2012 to the Delhi government requesting it to continue the FTC scheme as a permanent feature. In 2013, the high court again wrote to the Delhi government to expedite the setting up of permanent FTCs and to sanction 20 posts of additional district and sessions judges along with 95 posts of ancillary staff, the petition has said.

The government, however, sanctioned the FTCs only for one more year, the plea has claimed. It added that this sanction was given year after year whenever a letter was sent by the high court to make it permanent.

"However, no such court (FTC) has become functional against this sanction as no appointment to such courts can be made on an ad hoc basis," the petition has claimed. It has also claimed that there is a shortfall of over 200 judges in the subordinate judiciary which has led to an increase in pendency of cases, including those of sexual assault against minors and rape, in the lower courts.

(This story has not been edited by Devdiscourse staff and is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)