Author: Kumar Hrishikesh
The editorial, “Victim Compensation: Justice Delayed, Relief Denied”, published in The Pioneer on October 30, 2026, raises an important issue that has largely remained outside mainstream public discussion. I would like to pass on my sincere appreciation to the author for drawing attention to critical aspects highlighting the plight of those who are unable to receive their statutory right to compensation and are instead kept waiting for a prolonged period of time for any recovery and rehabilitation support. The tragic case of an intellectually disabled rape survivor who passed away without being able to receive her full compensation is a concerning example highlighting the gap between justice delivery and justice delivered.
The author correctly highlights that the Indian legal framework does not necessarily lack appropriate provisions or mechanisms concerning victim compensation. Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to the erstwhile Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973) provides a legal framework covering compensation to victims requiring rehabilitation. This is supplemented by various similar schemes at the National and State Govt. level; however, the existence of these mechanisms means little if they are unable to deliver timely relief to deserving victims.
One aspect that could have been examined in greater detail is the actual journey of a compensation claim. Although Section 396 provides for completion of the prescribed enquiry within two months, from the public information available, one can note that the actual process can take considerably longer and involves various parties at various stages. Each stage may involve correspondence, extensive documentation, and administrative scrutiny. The absence of timelines for each stage makes it difficult to identify precisely where applications remain pending. The procedural difficulties with respect to the processing of victim compensation are a matter of concern as well. Requiring survivors who have been through scarring ordeals to produce extensive documents at multiple levels is something which should be rethought. It is true that to prevent misuse of such schemes, verification is necessary; however, a balance should be maintained, and such excessive verification may translate to apathy towards victims.
Another significant concern that was raised by the author is the failure of courts to issue appropriate compensation directions. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this matter is welcome, and the apex court has noted that in the absence of appropriate directions, victims are often forced to pursue compensation claims independently. The Supreme Court has also directed judicial academies to sensitise judges with respect to the relevant legal framework, which is a crucial step. In my opinion, courts should routinely assess the needs of victims in such cases and should not wait till the stage of final judgment before a relevant direction in this regard is passed. There is also a crucial need for setting specific timelines with respect to each and every stage of the process involved in the disbursal of compensation to victims under the current legal framework. Accountability needs to be fixed, and any delays in the processing of claims should be explained in writing by the relevant officer or department.
Finally, as the author points out, the underutilisation of the Nirbhaya Fund and differences in State compensation schemes weaken the effectiveness of the entire framework. There is an urgent need for all parties to ensure appropriate and timely funding, publication of utilisation reports, and periodic review of compensation amounts. Digitisation of this process through a centralised portal can also help increase transparency and visibility, as well as the remediation of bottlenecks in this process.
To conclude, victim compensation is not charity or an act of generosity, but it is an important component of the State’s obligation and a legal right of each and every victim of this heinous crime. The purpose of such extensive administrative schemes and legal frameworks is defeated when the relief it aims to provide arrives too late. The author has rightly brought light to this issue, and the next step must be to set out a transparent, time-bound, and accountable system in which the right to compensation is not merely a legal right but is effective in delivering its aim to needy victims. As it is rightly said, justice delayed is justice denied.
The writer is an IRS officer who has a keen interest in analysing and sharing his perspective on contemporary issues; Views presented are personal.