A recent verdict of the Calcutta High Court can be termed as a ray of hope for victims or families of victims who are entitled to receive compensation from the government owing to any kind of injustice inflicted upon them or if they have been victims of crimes that make the government liable to pay them compensation.
In a case of human trafficking when the West Bengal government directed the victim to deposit 3/4th of their compensation amount in a bank, the Calcutta High Court ruled that it had no authority to impose any such conditions.
Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharya delivered this verdict last week while hearing petitions filed by two victims of human trafficking who had been asked by the government to deposit three fourth of the compensation amount in a nationalised bank for a certain period. Justice Bhattacharya held that “The state pays the compensation because of its failure to secure the victims. So, it has no right to impose any condition while disbursing the compensation amount.”
In their petitions, the two victims had challenged the orders of the State Legal Aid Service that had asked the state government to impose the said conditions while disbursing the compensation. In turn, the state authorities said three fourth of the Rs 4 lakh compensation would have to be deposited in any nationalised bank in a Monthly Income Scheme in the name of the victim for a period of ten years, with auto renewal option. The order said that if the same was not complied with, necessary action would follow!
A high court lawyer said that after any victims of human trafficking are rescued, they have a right to claim compensation before the state or district legal aid service which then recommend the government to disburse the compensation.
Recalling an incident, a lawyer told The Telegraph, “ After the death of 167 people in a hooch tragedy at Sangrampur, the state had announced compensation of Rs 2 lakh each to the families of the deceased, but imposed a condition that the amounts would have to be deposited in a nationalised banks in their names and they would not be allowed to withdraw the cash for 10 years. Henceforth, the government cannot impose such condition.”
A similar situation had arisen when the Gujarat government led by then CM Narendra Modi had announced compensation for victims of Gujarat riots in 2002. Not only was the compensation, reportedly, lower than what was announced for victims of the Godhra train carnage, but the conditions imposed were also unfair. The government had a condition that 40 per cent of the compensation would be paid in cash while the rest would be in the form of Narmada Shrinidhi Bonds. Basically, compensation to victims of one of the worst genocides seen in the country in the 21st century was not only marred with discrimination but also with unfair conditions that did no good for the poor and hapless families, many of whom had become homeless in their own home state due to loss of property to the riots.
During this time, when the victims were waiting for justice to be served, Citizens of Justice and Peace had relentlessly worked on the ground with the victims and had held their hand throughout the battles in court. CJP had called out this move of the Gujarat government to be completely illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional. CJP and its counsel maintained that the amount should be in consonance with the state’s obligations under Article 14 (guaranteeing equality before the law) and Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, this latest judgment from the Calcutta High Court is a welcome and a much needed precedent for victims of such crimes where government is liable to compensate them. The court held that the “State Legal Services Authority has no authority to control and monitor the amount of compensation disbursed to a victim who has attained majority. She or he has every right and the liberty to choose the mode of expending the compensation amount, as she/he feels appropriate for her rehabilitation after the trauma of the offence… The SLSA can at best offer post‐disbursal schemes to the victim to safeguard her/his best interests, but that has to be optional, chosen by the victim only in the event she/he opts for it, and not mandatory… Such a method is counterproductive to the scheme of Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure and would be an illegal fetter on the personal liberty of the victim.”
The Court further referring to George Orwell’s dystopian book titled ‘1984’ said, “We are in 2020 now, and not in ‘1984’ (as contemplated by George Orwell). As such, the ‘Big Brother’ approach of the disbursing authority should be shunned and the victim should be free to spend the compensation granted to her/him at her/his option. The right to commit a mistake inheres in the right to personal liberty and freedom and should not be curtailed mandatorily and arbitrarily by the SLSA merely because it is in charge of the purse‐string, that too for such meagre amounts of compensation as contemplated under the Scheme.”
The judgment can be read here:
Related:
PIL in Allahabad HC seeks stay on UP govt’s ordinance, calls it ultra vires to Constitution
MHA on CAA petition: Whole expanse of Article 21 cannot be made available to illegal migrants