Maharashtra has earmarked 203 pending cases for trial across 23 designated courts, encompassing not just violations under the Centre’s Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, but also cases filed under the state’s Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and Other Specified Examinations Act, 1982. Maharashtra is one of the first states to set up dedicated fast-track courts for exam-related offences. This decision considerably expanded the range of cases to be heard by the special courts. A review of the identified cases reveals they span beyond paper leak cases, covering a wide range of examination-related offences, from cheating during Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) exams to alleged malpractices in recruitment tests for government positions, including those for the police and municipal bodies. These cases have been filed under a combination of laws: the 1982 state legislation, the 2024 central act, relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Information Technology Act. On Friday, acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge of the Bombay High Court nominated the remaining special courts after informing two such courts, in Aurangabad and Nagpur, last week.&nbsp;Also read: <a href="https://www.wionews.com/india-news/can-a-minister-who-is-not-an-mla-or-mlc-hold-cabinet-berth-for-more-than-6-months-wion-decodes-1785522874537">Can a minister who is not an MLA or MLC hold cabinet berth for more than 6 months? WION Decodes</a><h3>Special fast-track courts</h3>In response, Presiding officers have been ordered to make every attempt to finish trials within three months of the chargesheet registration. In most of the discovered cases, chargesheets have already been registered. This came last week after PM Modi announced to set up of special fast-track courts to try examination malpractice cases in the wake of the NEET paper leak controversy that triggered nationwide student protests. Subsequently, the Union Law Ministry also directed states to operationalise courts to hear offences falling under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The earliest case slated for trial before these courts dates back to 2002 and remains pending in a Mumbai court, involving alleged irregularities and corruption in Maharashtra Public Service Commission exams for positions such as police sub-inspector. Courts have been assigned district-wise based on case backlog. Aurangabad tops the list with 46 identified cases, followed by Thane (22), Pune (18), Jalgaon (15), Mumbai (12), and Nagpur and Parbhani (11 each). Most of these cases involve allegations of cheating through various means, including the use of electronic devices during exams.

Courts have been assigned district-wise based on case backlog. Aurangabad tops the list with 46 identified cases, followed by Thane (22), Pune (18), Jalgaon (15), Mumbai (12), and Nagpur and Parbhani (11 each). 

Maharashtra has earmarked 203 pending cases for trial across 23 designated courts, encompassing not just violations under the Centre’s Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024, but also cases filed under the state’s Maharashtra Prevention of Malpractices at University, Board and Other Specified Examinations Act, 1982. Maharashtra is one of the first states to set up dedicated fast-track courts for exam-related offences. This decision considerably expanded the range of cases to be heard by the special courts. A review of the identified cases reveals they span beyond paper leak cases, covering a wide range of examination-related offences, from cheating during Higher Secondary Certificate (HSC) exams to alleged malpractices in recruitment tests for government positions, including those for the police and municipal bodies. These cases have been filed under a combination of laws: the 1982 state legislation, the 2024 central act, relevant sections of the Indian Penal Code or Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, and the Information Technology Act. On Friday, acting Chief Justice Ravindra Ghuge of the Bombay High Court nominated the remaining special courts after informing two such courts, in Aurangabad and Nagpur, last week. Also read: Can a minister who is not an MLA or MLC hold cabinet berth for more than 6 months? WION Decodes Special fast-track courts In response, Presiding officers have been ordered to make every attempt to finish trials within three months of the chargesheet registration. In most of the discovered cases, chargesheets have already been registered. This came last week after PM Modi announced to set up of special fast-track courts to try examination malpractice cases in the wake of the NEET paper leak controversy that triggered nationwide student protests. Subsequently, the Union Law Ministry also directed states to operationalise courts to hear offences falling under the Public Examinations (Prevention of Unfair Means) Act, 2024. The earliest case slated for trial before these courts dates back to 2002 and remains pending in a Mumbai court, involving alleged irregularities and corruption in Maharashtra Public Service Commission exams for positions such as police sub-inspector. Courts have been assigned district-wise based on case backlog. Aurangabad tops the list with 46 identified cases, followed by Thane (22), Pune (18), Jalgaon (15), Mumbai (12), and Nagpur and Parbhani (11 each). Most of these cases involve allegations of cheating through various means, including the use of electronic devices during exams.

Courts have been assigned district-wise based on case backlog. Aurangabad tops the list with 46 identified cases, followed by Thane (22), Pune (18), Jalgaon (15), Mumbai (12), and Nagpur and Parbhani (11 each).&nbsp;

Maharashtra identifies 203 cases for trial in new fast-track exam courts, spans beyond paper leaks

&nbsp;In a grim reflection of the burden of cases on the judiciary, the Supreme Court today said a subordinate court in the country was grappling with an average of around 4,000 pending cases.

The top court, while favouring the creation of <a href="http://www.wionews.com/india-news/constitute-special-courts-to-finish-pending-cases-against-mps-mlas-supreme-court-to-government-23298" target="_blank">special courts to exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians</a> and their speedy disposal, said the average number of cases being dealt with by a subordinate court was far more than what should have been there.

&quot;The average number of cases each court has in the country is about 4,000 in trial courts. 4,000 is far more than what should be there,&quot; a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said.

&quot;Even if the Supreme Court says that complete the trial (in cases involving politicians) within one year, unless the judge is only hearing these cases, it would be difficult,&quot; it said.

Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni asked the bench whether these special courts, which would exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians, could be combined with special CBI courts which already exist across the country.

Replying to the Additional Solicitor General the bench refused to combine the special courts to the already existing CBI courts.&nbsp;

The bench said, &quot;it is in the interest of the nation&quot;.

&quot;Insofar as setting up of special courts are concerned, setting up of special courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the states,&quot; the bench noted in its order.

It said the problem could be resolved by having a central scheme for setting up of such special courts on the lines of fast-track courts which were established by the Centre for a period of five years and extended further, a scheme that has now been discontinued.

The apex court said a scheme in this regard should be laid before it on December 13, the next date of hearing, indicating the amount of funds that could be earmarked for setting up of special courts.

After this, the issues of appointment of judicial officers, public prosecutors, court staff and requirement of manpower and infrastructure would be dealt with, if required, by interacting with representatives of the respective states, it said.

The Centre told the court that it would place the details as sought by it within six weeks.

The top court was hearing petitions seeking to declare the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which bar convicted politician from contesting elections for six years after serving a jail term, as ultra vires to the Constitution.&nbsp;

The top court, while favouring the creation of special courts to exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians and their speedy disposal, said the average number of cases being dealt with by a subordinate court was far more than what should have been there

In a grim reflection of the burden of cases on the judiciary, the Supreme Court today said a subordinate court in the country was grappling with an average of around 4,000 pending cases. The top court, while favouring the creation of special courts to exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians and their speedy disposal, said the average number of cases being dealt with by a subordinate court was far more than what should have been there. "The average number of cases each court has in the country is about 4,000 in trial courts. 4,000 is far more than what should be there," a bench comprising Justices Ranjan Gogoi and Navin Sinha said. "Even if the Supreme Court says that complete the trial (in cases involving politicians) within one year, unless the judge is only hearing these cases, it would be difficult," it said. Representing the Centre, Additional Solicitor General Atmaram Nadkarni asked the bench whether these special courts, which would exclusively deal with criminal cases involving politicians, could be combined with special CBI courts which already exist across the country. Replying to the Additional Solicitor General the bench refused to combine the special courts to the already existing CBI courts. The bench said, "it is in the interest of the nation". "Insofar as setting up of special courts are concerned, setting up of special courts and infrastructure would be dependent on the availability of finances with the states," the bench noted in its order. It said the problem could be resolved by having a central scheme for setting up of such special courts on the lines of fast-track courts which were established by the Centre for a period of five years and extended further, a scheme that has now been discontinued. The apex court said a scheme in this regard should be laid before it on December 13, the next date of hearing, indicating the amount of funds that could be earmarked for setting up of special courts. After this, the issues of appointment of judicial officers, public prosecutors, court staff and requirement of manpower and infrastructure would be dealt with, if required, by interacting with representatives of the respective states, it said. The Centre told the court that it would place the details as sought by it within six weeks. The top court was hearing petitions seeking to declare the provisions of the Representation of the People (RP) Act, which bar convicted politician from contesting elections for six years after serving a jail term, as ultra vires to the Constitution.

Around 4,000 cases pending in each subordinate court: SC

special-fast-track-courts

Special Fast Track Courts, News on Special Fast Track Courts, stories on Special Fast Track Courts, articles on Special Fast Track Courts, Special Fast Track Courts stories at Wion, Special Fast Track Courts news, Special Fast Track Courts latest news

special fast-track-courts

Maharashtra identifies 203 cases for trial in new fast-track exam courts, spans beyond paper leaks

Around 4,000 cases pending in each subordinate court: SC