Victim compensation: Justice delayed, relief denied

A little over a year ago, in August 2025, an intellectually disabled rape survivor passed away after waiting for years to receive the full monetary compensation legally due to her. Despite a strong framework in place, backed by the judicial interpretation of Article 21 (right to life and personal liberty), together with the Directive Principles (Articles 38 and 41) to enable compensation, as well as the institution of the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) under the Nirbhaya Fund, the survivor was not able to receive her remaining dues before her death. Ironically, the Nirbhaya Fund was created to provide support by way of financial assistance to help tide over the immediate and long-term harm caused by violence. Constituted in 2013, in the aftermath of the horrific Delhi gang rape, the Fund covers medical treatment, psychological counselling, loss of income, relocation costs, legal expenses and other rehabilitation needs.

This case received attention thanks to the Supreme Court, which took cognisance of the tragedy and passed a comprehensive judgment in July this year to address the systemic delays and administrative apathy in ensuring and disbursing compensation. It remains to be seen how soon and how sincerely the Court’s directives are implemented.

But what about the thousands of cases that go under the radar? How many more deaths will be needed to expedite the huge number of cases awaiting compensation? The sharp and alarming rise in such cases over the period from 2022 to 2024 underlines the malaise. The pending cases doubled from 17,085 in 2022-2023 to 33,257 in 2023-2024, according to the latest National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) data.

One of the primary reasons why many survivors are unable to access financial compensation despite the legal guarantees is the chronic underutilisation of the Nirbhaya Fund, states a new study by the South Asian Movement for Accessing Justice (SAMAJ). With several states spending less than half of their allocations, disbursal timelines are slow, and fund governance lacks transparency, the report reveals. Consequently, these implementation gaps directly affect compensation pathways, as many state-level Victim Compensation Schemes rely on Nirbhaya Fund-linked resources.

Worryingly, victims/survivors from marginalised groups face greater obstacles in accessing compensation. As the SAMAJ research points out, Dalit women and women with disabilities face prejudicial treatment and institutional apathy. The exclusionary attitude, more often than not, leads to less reporting by survivors and thus further reduces the likelihood of their receiving compensation or services. Data show that fewer than one in seven cases involving survivors of sexual assault even reach the stage of seeking compensation.

Considering the arduous process of seeking compensation, it is no wonder that survivors are wary of pursuing it. After a trial judge recommends compensation in the case of an adult rape victim, the application is forwarded to the secretary of the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA). The DLSA then examines it alongside various documentary proofs before deciding on the quantum of compensation to be recommended. After approval, the application is sent to the member-secretary of the State Legal Services Authority, who orders the release of funds.

However, in practice, as the Supreme Court’s July 2026 judgment also noted, trial and sessions courts routinely fail to include mandatory compensation directions in their final judgments, whether convicting or acquitting the alleged perpetrator. Further, there is widespread general indifference and a lack of institutional awareness regarding statutory victim compensation provisions. Judicial and administrative lapses place the burden on vulnerable survivors to navigate bureaucratic channels in pursuit of the compensation due to them.

Now, all Special, Sessions and POCSO courts have been directed by the Supreme Court to mandatorily issue appropriate directions for prompt financial compensation under statutory frameworks such as Section 357-A of the old CrPC and the corresponding Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita. While these provisions give survivors the legal right to compensation, unfortunately, the financial aid provided is often too late and too minimal to offer meaningful support. Additionally, monetary compensation is not uniform across the country, even for the same crime against women. In this scenario, introducing interim disbursal mechanisms that enable emergency grants to cover medical, psychosocial and transportation costs would ensure that survivors do not have to wait for the final adjudication. This would provide immediate relief, not only to pre-empt and prevent economic coercion for out-of-court settlements but also to give survivors the financial confidence to pursue their legal right to compensation.

The writer is a journalist writing on development and gender; Views presented are personal.