In the case of Tamilika Bose V. Mukut Bose, Calcutta High Court ruled that the Fast Track Court of Additional District Judge is not subordinate to the District Court and is also competent enough to dispose of the matters pertaining to Guardian and Wards Act, 1890. Moreover, the Fast Track Court doesn’t require any specific direction from the High Court.
The main purpose of establishing the Fast Track Courts in India was reducing the caseload on the existing judicial system, Judges of the Fast Track Courts are either appointed on an ad-hoc basis or retired judges are appointed. However, Justice Kesang Doma Bhutia ordered that the cases related to the Guardians and Wards Act cannot be filed independently rather they were to be assigned under the direction of the concerned District Court.
In the present case, the father of the child filed an application before the District Court under the Guardian and Wards Act (Section 24 and Section 25), but the matter was transferred to the Fast Track Court for the speedy delivery of Justice. However, this order of the District Court was challenged by the wife in front of the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta on the ground that the Fast Track court is subordinate to the District Court and not empowered to dispose of the proceedings of the Guardian and Wards Act.
The Calcutta High Court passed the above-mentioned order, not in the favor of the wife. Furthermore, subsection 1 of Section 4A of the Guardian and Ward Act enables the High Court through any special order empowering the District Court to transfer the case to any subordinate court and dispose of any proceedings pertaining to the Guardian and Wards Act. The High Court also agreed that the independent cases filed in the Fast Track Court will not be possible.
Tags : #HIGHCOURTS #CRPC #ADVOCATES #BENCH #CALCUTTAHIGHCOURT #WESTBENGAL #JUDGE #LEGALNEWS #GUARDIANANDWARDACT #FASTTRACKCOURTS