CASE NAME: MS. SANJANA SRIKUMAR vs NCT DELHI & OTHERS
CASE NO.: W.P. ( C ) 2804/2019
DATED: November 06, 2024
QUORUM: Hon’ble MS. Justice Tara Vitasta Ganju
FACTS OF THE CASE
The complainant, Dr. Sanjana Sreekumar (retired), had entered into an agreement to sell her property to a third party, Mr. Rakesh Tanwar, in July 2017. Following a dispute between the parties, the agreement was not implemented, leading to the litigation. During the course of the proceedings, on February 18, 2018, Rakesh Tanwar and his accomplices allegedly assaulted the complainant and hurled acid at her. To protect herself, she fled to the bathroom where the acid splashed on her legs. In the process, the electric rod ignited, forcing the attackers to flee. The complainant sustained superficial burns and was admitted to Deen Dayal Upadhyay Hospital. An FIR (No. 38/2018) was registered and an MLC was filed. The complainant then applied for interim compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2015 but felt that the amount received, a mere ₹ 30,000, was inadequate.
ISSUES OF THE CASE
After hearing the arguments, two issues were framed-
-
- Whether the compensation which is awarded to the petitioner by the CIBS was in compliance with the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2015?
- Whether the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DSLSA) had the proper discretion to award compensation which is lower than the prescribed minimum compensation for acid attacks victims?
LEGAL PROVISIONS
- Section 2(g), Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2015- This section defines “offences” as any offence which is mentioned in Indian penal code 1860 (now ‘Bhartiya Nyaya Sanhita’).
- Section 2 (k), Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme 2015- Defines “victim” as person who has suffered injury due to the offence and in case of death, the guardian or legal heir of the deceased person is referred as a “victim”.
PETITIONER’S CONTENTION
The petitioner’s primary contention was that the interim compensation awarded by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) was substantially lower than the minimum prescribed under the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme, 2015. According to the Scheme, victims of acid attacks with injuries below 50% are entitled to a minimum of ₹3 lakhs. The petitioner argued that the CICB had erred in awarding ₹30,000, citing non-compliance with the law and jurisprudence on compensation to acid attack victims.
RESPONDENT’S CONTENTION
The respondents defended the CICB’s decision, arguing that the extent of the injuries (5-6% superficial burns) justified a reduction in the compensation. They also argued that the discretion given by the scheme allows for an allocation of less than Rs 3 lakh in “appropriate cases”. They further point out that the term “acid attack” used in the programme implies a threshold of harm different from that suffered by the complainant.
JUDGEMENT
In its judgement, the Delhi High Court ordered the respondents to grant Rs 30 lakh to the plaintiff, after deducting the interim amount of Rs 30,000 already paid. The court noted that the provisions of the scheme are aimed at providing comprehensive rehabilitation and financial assistance to acid attack victims and any deviation from this objective would defeat it.
ANALYSIS
The Court analyzed Clauses 8 and 9 of the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme and observed that while these clauses provide for discretionary powers in determining compensation, they do not override the minimum threshold prescribed in the scheme for acid attack victims. The petition fixes a minimum compensation of Rs 3 lakh for acid attack victims with less than 50% injuries. The court emphasized the intent of the Act to rehabilitate the victims and pointed to precedent cases including Lakshmi v. Rogers, Union of India and Parivartan Kendra Vs. The Union of India case highlights the importance of adequate compensation for acid attack survivors.
The court rejected the defendant’s argument that the plaintiff’s injuries did not fall within the definition of an acid attack. He explained that after CICB has decided to compensate, it will not be less than the minimum of the law after being justified. Assuming the discretionary rewards, the interpretation proposed by the respondents was considered inconsistent with the government’s purpose and the judicial declaration.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the Court confirmed that legal compensation for victims of acid attacks must meet the prescribed minimum amount. This decision reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to providing justice and rehabilitation to victims in accordance with the legal framework and constitutional principles.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY: SHAKCHI VERMA
