Supreme Court Rulings On Victim Compensation
Victim Compensation: Overview
Victim compensation refers to monetary or other relief provided to victims of crime to help them recover from loss or injury caused by the offense. The Supreme Court of India has played a crucial role in evolving the concept of victim compensation through judicial activism.
Landmark Supreme Court Cases on Victim Compensation
1. Bhagwan Singh v. Commissioner of Police, (1983) 2 SCC 68
Facts:
The petitioner challenged the refusal of compensation after police brutality caused injuries.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that compensation is an integral part of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The court ruled that the state must compensate victims who suffer due to police excesses or failure in protection.
Significance:
This was among the earliest rulings recognizing victim compensation as a constitutional obligation.
Set the foundation for state responsibility for protecting and compensating victims.
2. Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746
Facts:
The petitioner’s son died in police custody due to alleged torture.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court awarded compensation for custodial death.
It held that compensation is a part of the enforcement of the right to life and liberty under Article 21.
The court emphasized the duty of the state to compensate victims for violation of fundamental rights.
Significance:
Reinforced the principle that custodial violence must be punished and victims compensated.
Expanded the scope of compensation beyond direct victims to include family members.
3. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India, AIR 1995 SC 2250
Facts:
The case focused on sexual harassment and violence against women.
Judgment:
The court recognized the need for state action including compensation for victims of sexual violence.
It called for rehabilitation and monetary relief as part of the victim’s rights.
Significance:
Highlighted victim compensation in cases of gender-based violence.
Urged the government to formulate policies to protect and support women victims.
4. State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh, AIR 2004 SC 1415
Facts:
The petitioner sought compensation for the family of a victim killed due to police firing.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court upheld the principle that compensation is necessary to do complete justice.
Held that compensation is not dependent on conviction in criminal trials.
Affirmed that compensation can be ordered even when criminal proceedings are pending or unsuccessful.
Significance:
Established that victim compensation is independent of criminal conviction.
Encouraged courts to take a proactive role in awarding compensation.
5. Pramila Bisoyi v. State of Orissa, (2002) 8 SCC 503
Facts:
The petitioner sought compensation for acid attack victims.
Judgment:
The court ordered monetary compensation and emphasized the state’s obligation to protect and rehabilitate acid attack victims.
Directed government authorities to implement victim compensation schemes.
Significance:
Affirmed the principle that compensation should be prompt and adequate.
Strengthened victim-centric policies in cases of grievous bodily harm.
Summary Table
| Case | Key Principle | Impact on Victim Compensation |
|---|---|---|
| Bhagwan Singh | Compensation as part of right to life | Early recognition of state liability for victim harm |
| Nilabati Behera | Compensation for custodial death | State responsibility for custodial violence |
| Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum | Compensation for sexual violence victims | Focus on gender-sensitive victim support |
| State of Punjab v. Ramdev Singh | Compensation independent of conviction | Expanded judicial power to grant compensation |
| Pramila Bisoyi | Compensation and rehabilitation for acid attack victims | Promoted victim-centric relief schemes |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court of India has progressively developed the doctrine of victim compensation, holding the state accountable for injuries caused to citizens, whether by crime or state action. These rulings emphasize that compensation is not just charity but a constitutional right linked to the right to life and dignity under Article 21.
RELATED Blog
0 comments