Public Compensation Schemes for Mandatory Interventions: Fairness

Public Compensation Schemes for Mandatory Interventions concern the legal and ethical obligation of the State to provide fair financial or other relief when people suffer injury, loss, or serious adverse consequences because of an intervention imposed or conducted in the public interest. Such interventions may include compulsory acquisition of property, mandatory medical measures, public-health programmes, evacuation orders, or other legally required activities.

The central fairness principle is that the public should not enjoy the benefits of a State intervention while an individual or a small group is left to bear an exceptional and serious burden without an accessible remedy. Compensation does not necessarily mean that the intervention was unlawful or that the State was negligent. It may be a form of equitable relief arising from the State’s positive constitutional obligations.

In India, compensation depends on the governing statute, constitutional principles, and the nature of the intervention. There is no universal compensation scheme covering every mandatory public intervention.

Principles of Fair Compensation

1. Equality and fairness

Compensation should be based on transparent and consistent criteria. Similarly situated individuals should receive comparable treatment. Arbitrary exclusions or unexplained differences may violate Article 14 of the Constitution.

2. No-fault compensation

In some public programmes, affected persons should not be required to prove negligence before receiving relief. This is especially important where causation is scientifically complex or the intervention was conducted on a mass scale.

3. Proportionality of compensation

The amount should reasonably reflect the seriousness of the injury, disability, death, property loss, or economic harm. A fair scheme may consider medical expenses, loss of income, long-term care, and support for dependants.

4. Accessible procedures

The process should be simple, timely, and affordable. Excessive documentation, lengthy litigation, and demanding proof that is practically impossible to obtain may make compensation rights ineffective.

5. Transparency and review

Eligibility rules, assessment standards, and reasons for rejection should be publicly available. Applicants should have access to an independent review or grievance mechanism.

Important Case Laws

1. Rachana Gangu & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2026 INSC 218

In this judgment dated 10 March 2026, the Supreme Court directed the Union Government to formulate a no-fault compensation framework for serious adverse events following COVID-19 vaccination. The Court emphasised that Article 21 imposes a positive obligation on the State where grave harm occurs in the course of a State-led public-health intervention. It observed that requiring affected families to prove negligence through individual civil proceedings could impose an excessive burden. The Court directed the government to frame and publish an appropriate policy while clarifying that this did not amount to an admission of fault. This is a significant recent authority for fairness in public compensation schemes.

Nirnay+1

2. Jacob Puliyel v. Union of India, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 533

The Supreme Court held that bodily integrity and personal autonomy are protected under Article 21 and that no individual can be forcibly vaccinated. It also recognised the State’s power to impose reasonable and proportionate public-health restrictions. The Court directed that suspected adverse events following immunisation should be reportable through an accessible platform and that relevant data should be publicly available while protecting confidentiality. The judgment supports informed decision-making, transparency, and monitoring in public interventions.

Live Law+1

3. Gaurav Kumar Bansal v. Union of India, (2021) 6 SCC 568

During the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court directed the National Disaster Management Authority to recommend guidelines for ex gratia assistance to families of persons who died due to COVID-19. The case illustrates that statutory disaster-relief duties can require public authorities to establish financial assistance mechanisms for affected families. It also demonstrates the importance of accessible procedures for obtaining relief.

The Indian Express

4. K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1

The Supreme Court recognised privacy as a fundamental right and established that State interference must satisfy legality, legitimate purpose, necessity, and proportionality. Although not a compensation case, these principles help determine whether a mandatory intervention is constitutionally justified and whether safeguards or remedies are required when individual rights are affected.

Conclusion

Fair compensation for mandatory public interventions promotes equality, dignity, and public trust. A sound scheme should provide clear eligibility rules, proportionate relief, accessible claims procedures, transparent decision-making, and effective review. The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Rachana Gangu is especially relevant because it recognises that, in exceptional State-led public-health programmes, constitutional responsibility may extend beyond monitoring harm to creating a fair no-fault compensation mechanism.