ClearMains
Madhya Pradesh has 67 functional Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs), including 56 exclusive POCSO Courts, under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme. The establishment and administration of courts fall within the domain of State Governments in consultation with High Courts.
Quick Revision
Prelims-testable facts
Trap alerts
Current-affairs link
The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012, is a landmark legislation aimed at protecting children from sexual abuse and exploitation.
Prelims Practice MCQs
How many Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) are functional under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme?
The Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Fast Track Special Courts has 67 functional courts.
Consider the following statements regarding Number of Functional FTSCs in Madhya Pradesh: 1. The Centrally Sponsored Scheme of Fast Track Special Courts has 67 functional courts, including 56 exclusive POCSO Courts. 2. All 67 functional FTSCs are exclusively dedicated to POCSO cases. 3. There is no proposal for setting up additional FTSCs in Madhya Pradesh. How many of the above statements are correct?
The fact list confirms that there are indeed 67 functional FTSCs under the Centrally Sponsored Scheme, but it does not specify whether all of them are exclusively dedicated to POCSO cases. Furthermore, it mentions that no proposal for setting up additional FTSCs is currently being considered in the said Parliamentary Constituency.
Consider the following two statements: Statement-I: The Union Minister of Law and Justice gave a written reply to the Lok Sabha regarding the setting up of additional FTSCs. Statement-II: The establishment of District and Subordinate Courts, including Special Courts, falls within the administrative domain of the respective State Governments, in consultation with the High Courts concerned. Which one of the following is correct in respect of the above statements?
The fact list confirms that the Union Minister did indeed give a written reply to the Lok Sabha regarding additional FTSCs. However, statement 2 explains why this is possible (i.e., because establishment of courts falls within state government's administrative domain), but it does not directly explain or justify statement 1.