Victim Compensation Schemes in India: A Juridical Analysis

Victim Compensation Schemes in India: A Juridical Analysis of Evolution, Implementation, and Challenges

Introduction

The paradigm of criminal justice in India has witnessed a significant, albeit gradual, shift from a purely offender-centric system to one that increasingly acknowledges the rights and needs of victims. Central to this evolution is the development and implementation of victim compensation schemes. These schemes, primarily institutionalized through Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), represent a crucial mechanism for providing financial assistance and rehabilitative support to individuals who have suffered loss or injury due to crime. This article undertakes a comprehensive analysis of victim compensation schemes in India, tracing their jurisprudential development, examining the legislative framework, critically evaluating key judicial pronouncements, and discussing the operational challenges that persist in ensuring effective redressal for victims. The analysis draws extensively upon landmark judgments and statutory provisions that have shaped the contemporary landscape of victim compensation in the Indian legal system.

Historical Context and Legislative Framework

The concept of compensating victims of crime is not entirely novel to Indian jurisprudence. However, its systematic institutionalization is a relatively recent development, spurred by judicial activism and legislative reforms aimed at fostering a more victim-oriented justice system.

Early Judicial Concerns and Section 357 CrPC

Prior to the specific enactment for victim compensation schemes, Section 357 of the CrPC provided a limited avenue for compensating victims. This provision empowers courts to order payment of compensation out of the fine imposed on a convicted offender. However, its efficacy was constrained by several factors: compensation was contingent upon the conviction of the offender, the amount was limited to the fine imposed, and it depended on the offender's ability to pay. The Supreme Court, in cases like Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra[6], emphasized that while the language of Section 357 CrPC might appear discretionary, it imposes a duty on courts to apply their minds to the question of awarding compensation in every relevant criminal case. Early judicial interventions, such as in Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union Of India And Others[7], highlighted the dire need for structured mechanisms for victim rehabilitation and compensation, particularly for vulnerable groups. The Court directed the National Commission for Women (NCW) to develop a scheme, underscoring systemic failures in protecting victims of sexual assault.

The Patna High Court in Upendra Paswan v. State Of Bihar[11] and the Gauhati High Court in Nungshilila v. State Of Nagaland And Ors.[13] reiterated that while Section 357 CrPC allowed for compensation from fines, the judiciary, invoking constitutional principles (notably Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa and Railway Board v. Chandrima Das), has awarded substantial compensation against state instrumentalities for failure to protect victims' rights, irrespective of offender conviction. This laid the groundwork for a state-funded compensation model.

The Advent of Section 357-A CrPC and State-Sponsored Schemes

A significant legislative milestone was the insertion of Section 357-A into the CrPC by the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008 (effective from December 31, 2009). This provision mandates every State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, to prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to victims or their dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and require rehabilitation.[14] Section 357-A decouples victim compensation from the outcome of the criminal trial (conviction or acquittal) and the financial capacity of the offender, making the State responsible for providing such relief.[2] Subsequent amendments, like the insertion of Section 357-C, further mandated free medical treatment by all hospitals, public or private, to victims of acid attacks and rape.

As noted in MOHINI v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS[14], these schemes are framed under the powers of Section 357-A CrPC. The provision allows for compensation recommendations by the trial court if compensation under Section 357 is inadequate or in cases of acquittal/discharge where the victim needs rehabilitation. Crucially, sub-section (4) of 357-A allows victims or their dependents to apply for compensation even if the offender is not traced or identified, or where no trial takes place.[15]

Key Judicial Pronouncements Shaping Victim Compensation Schemes

The Supreme Court of India has played a pivotal role in interpreting and enforcing the provisions related to victim compensation, thereby significantly shaping the contours of these schemes and ensuring their effective implementation.

Laxmi v. Union of India: A Watershed for Acid Attack Victims

The series of orders in Laxmi v. Union Of India And Others[1, 5, 19, 20] marked a watershed moment, particularly for acid attack victims. The Court issued comprehensive directions addressing not only the regulation of acid sales but also the compensation and care for victims. Recognizing the inadequacy of compensation amounts in various state schemes, the Supreme Court directed that acid attack victims shall be paid a minimum compensation of ₹3 lakhs by the concerned State Government/Union Territory.[19] A crucial directive was that ₹1 lakh of this amount should be paid within 15 days of the incident (or its reporting) to facilitate immediate medical attention, with the balance ₹2 lakhs to be disbursed within two months thereafter.[19]

In a subsequent order in the same case, the Court reiterated the minimum compensation of ₹3 lakhs and emphasized the role of the Member-Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA) in ensuring compliance by State Governments and in giving wide publicity to the schemes.[20] The Court also stressed the need for free medical treatment, including by private hospitals, and aftercare for acid attack victims.[5, 20] The Patna High Court in THE STATE OF BIHAR v. JIYAUDDIN @ DHANNU[21] noted that the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014 was implemented by amending the 2011 scheme in light of the Supreme Court's observations in Laxmi.

Suresh And Another v. State Of Haryana: Compensation Irrespective of Trial Outcome

The judgment in Suresh And Another v. State Of Haryana[2, 12] significantly contributed to the jurisprudence on victim compensation under Section 357-A CrPC. The Supreme Court highlighted that the legislative intent behind Section 357-A was to ensure that victims receive compensation irrespective of the prosecution's outcome.[2] The Court criticized the High Court's dismissal of a compensation petition without due consideration, thereby holding the State accountable. It emphasized that compensation under Section 357-A is payable in all cases, irrespective of conviction or acquittal, and that interim compensation ought to be given at the earliest.[12] This principle ensures that the victim's need for rehabilitation is addressed even if the criminal justice process fails to secure a conviction.

Parivartan Kendra v. Union Of India: Enhancing Compensation and Holistic Support

Building upon the precedents, particularly Laxmi, the Supreme Court in Parivartan Kendra v. Union Of India And Others[3] addressed the persistent inadequacies in compensation and medical support for acid attack victims. In this case, involving two Dalit sisters from Bihar, the Court directed the State of Bihar to provide an enhanced compensation of ₹10 lakhs to each victim, in addition to reimbursement of medical expenses.[3] This judgment underscored the need for not just monetary compensation but also comprehensive support systems, including standard treatment guidelines and the potential inclusion of acid attacks under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, for enhanced protection.[3]

Nipun Saxena And Another v. Union Of India: Interplay with Broader Victim Support

While primarily focused on protecting the identity of sexual offence victims, Nipun Saxena And Another v. Union Of India And Others[4] also touched upon victim compensation. The judgment noted the establishment of One-Stop Centres for victim support and referenced the evolution of compensation schemes, such as the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, which replaced an earlier version following Supreme Court directions.[22] This indicates the judiciary's holistic approach, viewing compensation as part of a broader ecosystem of victim support services.

Operational Framework and Challenges

Despite the robust legislative framework and proactive judicial interventions, the operationalization of victim compensation schemes in India is fraught with challenges that impede the delivery of timely and adequate justice to victims.

Role of Legal Services Authorities

Section 357-A(2) CrPC stipulates that when a court recommends compensation, the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) or State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation.[14] The SLSAs and DLSAs are also empowered to award compensation on applications made under sub-section (4) where the offender is untraced or no trial takes place.[15] The Supreme Court in Laxmi[20] specifically directed Member-Secretaries of SLSAs to ensure compliance with compensation directives and publicize the schemes. The Delhi High Court in MOHINI v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS[14] also centered its discussion on the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011, highlighting the procedural aspects involving these authorities.

Quantum of Compensation, Uniformity, and Adequacy

A significant challenge has been the lack of uniformity and adequacy in the quantum of compensation across different states. While Laxmi[19] mandated a minimum of ₹3 lakhs for acid attack victims, disparities persist for other crimes. The Supreme Court in Laxmi[1] noted the un-uniform compensation in schemes framed by various States and Union Territories, with Bihar initially providing ₹25,000 while Rajasthan provided ₹2 lakhs for acid attack victims, deeming most schemes inadequate. The goal is to ensure that compensation is sufficient for "aftercare and rehabilitation."[1] The Delhi High Court in Kamla Devi Petitioner v. Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.[8], while surveying the UK's Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme, highlighted the principle of state-funded compensation independent of the offender's ability to pay and based on a tariff system for injuries, suggesting a more structured approach.

Awareness and Accessibility of Schemes

A critical impediment is the low level of awareness among victims and even among functionaries within the criminal justice system. The Supreme Court in PINKI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH[10] (assuming a typo in the year, referring to a recent judgment based on data cited) highlighted alarming statistics: only 3.6% of victim respondents were aware of the Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivor of Sexual Assault/other crime-2018, and only 2.6% had benefited. The judgment further noted that victim compensation schemes under Section 357-A CrPC were not effectively reaching trafficked victims, with abysmal rates of application success and massive underutilization of allocated funds (75% of funds remaining unutilized across 19 States).[10]

Retrospective Application and Pending Cases

The question of whether compensation schemes apply to incidents that occurred before the schemes or Section 357-A CrPC came into force has been addressed by courts. The Calcutta High Court in Piyali Dutta v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors.[17] dealt with an acid attack victim whose incident occurred in 2005, prior to Section 357-A. The court considered arguments for a beneficial interpretation to grant relief, citing Laxmi. The Karnataka High Court in The State Of Karnataka, Police Sub-Inspector, Pattanayakanahalli Police Station, Sira Taluk v. Rangaswamy[9] opined that the benefit of Section 357-A CrPC and the victim compensation scheme should be given to all pending matters as on the date of the notification (31.12.2009).

Specific Victim Categories and Tailored Support

The judiciary has shown sensitivity to the unique needs of different categories of victims.

  • Acid Attack Victims: As extensively discussed, Laxmi[1, 5, 19, 20] and Parivartan Kendra[3] have laid down specific, enhanced provisions.
  • Sexual Assault Victims: Cases like Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum[7] and Tekan Alias Tekram v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh)[18] (where the Court considered compensation for a blind rape prosecutrix and inquired about the state's scheme) demonstrate judicial concern. Nipun Saxena[4] also contributes to the support framework.
  • Trafficked Victims: The PINKI[10] case starkly reveals the failure of current schemes to adequately address the plight of trafficked persons.
  • Other Victims: The Supreme Court in X v. State Of Jharkhand And Others[16], while noting compensation already paid under the Jharkhand Victim Compensation Scheme, directed further support like free education for the victim's children and consideration for housing under government schemes, indicating a move towards holistic rehabilitation beyond mere monetary aid.
The Karnataka High Court in Rangaswamy[9] also mentioned that the Legal Services Authority might order immediate first-aid or medical benefits free of cost to alleviate suffering, or any other interim relief.

Conclusion and The Path Forward

The journey of victim compensation schemes in India reflects a commendable progression towards a more empathetic and restorative criminal justice system. Legislative reforms, particularly the introduction of Section 357-A CrPC, and proactive judicial oversight by the Supreme Court and various High Courts, have been instrumental in establishing the State's responsibility to compensate and rehabilitate victims of crime. Landmark judgments in cases like Laxmi, Suresh, and Parivartan Kendra have not only clarified the scope and mandate of these schemes but have also pushed for enhanced compensation, timely disbursal, and holistic support, especially for vulnerable victims like those of acid attacks and sexual violence.

However, significant challenges persist. Issues of inadequate and non-uniform compensation, chronic underutilization of funds, abysmally low awareness levels among victims, and procedural hurdles continue to undermine the efficacy of these schemes. The plight of specific victim groups, such as trafficked persons, highlights deep systemic gaps. For victim compensation to truly serve its purpose, a multi-pronged approach is imperative. This includes concerted efforts to increase awareness through sustained campaigns, simplification of application procedures, capacity building for Legal Services Authorities and other stakeholders, ensuring uniformity and adequacy in compensation amounts across states, and robust monitoring mechanisms to track fund utilization and scheme effectiveness. Furthermore, a shift towards comprehensive rehabilitative support, encompassing medical aid, psychological counseling, legal assistance, and socio-economic reintegration, as envisioned in cases like X v. State Of Jharkhand[16], is essential. Only through sustained commitment and collaborative action can India ensure that its victim compensation schemes translate from legislative intent and judicial directive into tangible justice for every victim of crime.

References

  1. Laxmi v. Union Of India And Others (2014 SCC 4 427, Supreme Court Of India, 2013)
  2. Suresh And Another v. State Of Haryana . (2015 SCC 2 227, Supreme Court Of India, 2014)
  3. Parivartan Kendra v. Union Of India And Others (2016 SCC 3 571, Supreme Court Of India, 2015)
  4. Nipun Saxena And Another v. Union Of India And Others (2019 SCC 2 703, Supreme Court Of India, 2018)
  5. Laxmi v. Union Of India And Others (2016 SCC 3 669, Supreme Court Of India, 2015)
  6. Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State Of Maharashtra . (2013 SCC 6 770, Supreme Court Of India, 2013)
  7. Delhi Domestic Working Women'S Forum v. Union Of India And Others (1995 SCC CRI 7, Supreme Court Of India, 1994)
  8. Kamla Devi Petitioner v. Government Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr. S (Delhi High Court, 2004)
  9. The State Of Karnataka, Police Sub-Inspector, Pattanayakanahalli Police Station, Sira Taluk v. Rangaswamy (Karnataka High Court, 2015)
  10. PINKI v. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (Supreme Court Of India, Referred as recent judgment based on content)
  11. Upendra Paswan v. State Of Bihar (Patna High Court, 2016)
  12. Suresh And Another v. State Of Haryana . (Supreme Court Of India, 2014) [Additional Snippet]
  13. Nungshilila v. State Of Nagaland And Ors. (Gauhati High Court, 2017)
  14. MOHINI v. THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) & ORS (Delhi High Court, 2015)
  15. Mohini Petitioner v. The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) & Ors. S (Delhi High Court, 2015)
  16. X v. State Of Jharkhand And Others (2021 SCC ONLINE SC 32, Supreme Court Of India, 2021)
  17. Piyali Dutta v. The State Of West Bengal & Ors. (2017 SCC ONLINE CAL 8743, Calcutta High Court, 2017)
  18. Tekan Alias Tekram v. State Of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh). (2016 SCC 4 461, Supreme Court Of India, 2016)
  19. Laxmi v. Union Of India And Others (2014 SCC 4 427, Supreme Court Of India, 2013) [Additional Snippet]
  20. Laxmi v. Union Of India And Others (2016 SCC 3 669, Supreme Court Of India, 2015) [Additional Snippet]
  21. THE STATE OF BIHAR v. JIYAUDDIN @ DHANNU (Patna High Court, 2021)
  22. KARAN v. STATE NCT OF DELHI (Delhi High Court, 2020)