The Cabinet decision continues the scheme and authorises its funding; it does not itself create any court, change trial procedure, or fix how many courts any particular State will get — operationalisation depends on the States and Union Territories, on pendency data, and on the Department of Justice's coordination with them.
- Issuer
- Union Cabinet (Department of Justice)
- Act
- Fast Track Special Courts Scheme
- Status
- in-force
- Outcome
- Cabinet decision of 4 November 2026 approving the continuation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Fast Track Special Courts, including exclusive POCSO courts, for five years from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031.
Five more years for fast-track rape and POCSO trials
The Union Cabinet, chaired by the Prime Minister, has approved the continuation of the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Fast Track Special Courts, including exclusive POCSO courts, for a further period of five years, from 1 April 2026 to 31 March 2031. The decision was announced in a Press Information Bureau release on 4 November 2026.
The scheme provides dedicated courts for the expeditious trial of rape cases and offences under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. Its continuation means the dedicated court network, which was previously extended only up to 31 March 2026, will now run for another five years.
₹3,788 crore, with the Centre's share from the Nirbhaya Fund
The extended scheme carries a total financial outlay of ₹3,788.04 crore. The Central share is ₹2,353.15 crore and the State and Union Territory share is ₹1,434.89 crore. The Central share will be funded from the Nirbhaya Fund.
Central assistance will be provided to participating States and Union Territories in accordance with the approved funding pattern and prescribed guidelines, and will meet the operational expenditure of the courts.
850 courts, each with a judge, a special prosecutor and six staff
The scheme provides for the operationalisation of 850 Fast Track Special Courts, including exclusive POCSO courts, across the participating States and Union Territories. That is an expansion from the current 779 courts, of which 399 are exclusive POCSO courts, so that coverage can extend to additional districts.
Each court is to have a dedicated Judicial Officer, a Special Public Prosecutor and six support staff, to facilitate the expeditious disposal of pending rape and POCSO cases. The expansion to additional districts will be decided on the basis of case pendency data across all States and Union Territories.
Department of Justice to run it; dashboard to track it
The scheme will be implemented by the Department of Justice in coordination with the respective State Governments and Union Territory Administrations. The Department will monitor performance through the FTSC Dashboard, periodic progress reports and expenditure statements from the States, and will hold consultations with High Courts and State Governments and take their feedback.
The release states the expected impacts as faster trials and timely justice for victims of sexual offences, a reduction in pending rape and POCSO cases, and a child-friendly and victim-centric environment, including Vulnerable Witness Deposition Centres and child-friendly court spaces so that victims can testify without further distress. The primary beneficiaries are women and children who are victims of rape and offences under the POCSO Act.
Running since 2019; over four lakh cases disposed of
The scheme has been operational since 2 October 2019 and has undergone successive extensions. Twenty-nine States and Union Territories participate, and 4,02,457 cases have been disposed of since the scheme began.
The scheme was launched under the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018 and the Supreme Court's directions dated 25 July 2019 in Suo Motu Writ (Criminal) No. 1 of 2019. The release says the Department of Justice regularly monitors the functioning of the courts through the FTSC Dashboard, periodic data collection from High Courts and review meetings.
BANTHRY ANALYSISWhy the extension matters, and what it does not settle
The significance of this decision is institutional rather than doctrinal. Fast Track Special Courts do not apply a different substantive law; they apply the same criminal law through dedicated courtrooms, dedicated prosecutors and dedicated staff, on the premise that pendency in sexual-offence cases is partly a capacity problem. The five-year extension, with a named outlay and a named funding source, removes the uncertainty that comes with short extensions and lets States plan staffing and infrastructure.
What the decision does not do is equally important. It does not fix the number of courts for any State, does not set disposal deadlines for individual cases, and does not by itself reduce pendency: the release ties expansion to pendency data and implementation to coordination between the Department of Justice, the States and the High Courts. The test of the extension will therefore be visible only in the FTSC Dashboard figures — how many of the 850 courts become functional, and how the disposal rate moves.
BANTHRY ANALYSISFor law students
Three features of this scheme are worth noting for examinations and for practice. First, it is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme, so the Centre funds part of the cost and the States run the courts — a standard cooperative-federalism arrangement. Second, its legal foundation is a combination of statute (the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2018) and a Supreme Court direction (Suo Motu Writ (Criminal) No. 1 of 2019), which is why the scheme survived successive extensions. Third, the Nirbhaya Fund — created after the 2012 Delhi gang-rape case — remains the funding source for the Central share, which connects this budgetary decision to that case's continuing institutional legacy.
READING PROMPTSQuestions for a closer reading
- What is the total financial outlay for the extended scheme, and how is it split between the Centre and the States?
- How many Fast Track Special Courts will operate under the extended scheme, and how many of the current courts are exclusive POCSO courts?
- Which body implements the scheme, and how is its performance monitored?
