E-Paper
SC notice to Centre, states on uniform victim compensation for hate crimes
The petition drew examples from recent instances to show that the quantum of compensation awarded to victims of mob violence/lynching paid from the discretionary of the chief minister’s relief fund does not follow objective and fair standards
The Supreme Court on Friday sought responses from Centre, states and union territories to a petition demanding uniform compensation for victims of mob lynching and hate crimes.
Dealing with a public interest litigation filed by a Muslim intellectual body –Indian Muslims for Progress and Reform, a bench of justices KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna issued notice to the Centre, states and UTs to know whether, in terms of a 2018 judgment of the top court in Tehseen Poonawala vs Union of India, the states/UTs framed a scheme to provide for victim compensation in incidents of mob lynching and mob violence.
The petition argued by advocate Javed Sheikh pointed out that these schemes had to be framed under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC). He relied on the 2018 judgment to suggest that the Court intended the states to consider parameters of bodily harm, psychological harm as well as loss of earnings, employment, etc while calculating the ex-gratia amount for victims.
Also Read: SC directs Centre, NCR states to allocate budget for RRTS
The bench said, “The endeavour of the petitioner is to seek implementation of the directions issued by this Court and to have as far as possible, uniform criteria for ex-gratia payment to victims of mob lynching and mob violence.”
The Supreme Court posted the matter for consideration after eight weeks. Till the next date, the Court directed responses to be filed by all governments explaining how the directions in the judgment have been complied with and the manner in which it has been done.
The petition also alleged that the lack of uniformity in granting ex-gratia compensation to victims ends up in some states paying a huge amount while others get a meagre sum.
The petition drew examples from recent instances to show that the quantum of compensation awarded to victims of mob violence/lynching paid from the discretionary of the chief minister’s relief fund does not follow objective and fair standards.
It gave the example of two hate crimes in Rajasthan to prove the point. The family of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor who was murdered in Udaipur in June received a cheque of ₹50 lakh and government jobs for the family. In contrast, the petition added, in a case from the same state where a cow vigilante group kidnapped and brutally burnt to death two persons hailing from a minority community in July, a sum of ₹5 lakh was paid as compensation.
Highlighting such action of the government to violate the fundamental guarantee of equality and non-discrimination promised under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, the petition sought orders against the state to fix uniform parameters for at least paying ex-gratia amount.
The bench did raise concerns about whether it could enforce uniformity in states. “We are not saying that victims are not entitled to compensation. But each compensation scheme is specific to a state. It cannot be uniform.”
The petitioner said that the 2018 judgment requiring states to frame a compensation scheme for such crimes was the right step in this direction. However, the lawyer for the petitioner pointed out that only some states have framed the scheme to date.
