SLSA Cannot Adopt 'Big Brother' Approach; Adult Victims Can Freely Spend Compensation Amount: Calcutta High Court
The Calcutta High Court has held that an adult victim receiving compensation under the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme has the right to decide how to utilise the amount and that the State Legal Services Authority cannot arbitrarily impose restrictions on its use. The Court accordingly dismissed appeals challenging a Single Judge's order which had set aside directions requiring victims of human trafficking and sexual offences to deposit 75% of their compensation in a bank for 10 years.
The Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray made the observation while dismissing appeals filed by the Member-Secretary, State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal (SLSA), against a Single Judge's decision setting aside restrictions imposed on the utilisation of compensation awarded to two adult victims of human trafficking and sexual offences.
The Court emphasised that the right to make a mistake is inherent in the right to personal liberty and freedom and cannot be arbitrarily curtailed by the SLSA merely because it is in charge of the compensation fund.
The case concerned Achiya Bibi and Supiya Bibi, who had been awarded compensation under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Achiya Bibi was awarded Rs. 3 lakh for being a victim of human trafficking, while Supiya Bibi was granted Rs. 4 lakh, comprising Rs. 3 lakh for trafficking and Rs. 1 lakh for rape.
However, the SLSA directed that 75% of the compensation awarded to each victim be deposited in a nationalised bank under a Monthly Income Scheme for a period of 10 years, with an auto-renewal option. The victims challenged these directions before the High Court.
The Single Judge had set aside the directions, holding that the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017 did not authorise the authorities to impose such restrictions on the manner in which compensation could be utilised by an adult victim.
The SLSA challenged that decision before the Division Bench, arguing that the restriction was intended to protect the victims from misuse of the compensation and ensure their rehabilitation. It also relied upon the National Legal Services Authority's Model Scheme for victim compensation.
The Division Bench, however, found no infirmity in the Single Judge's reasoning.
"The West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme does not authorize anybody to put any fetter on the manner of utilization of the compensation amount disbursed in favour of a victim," the Court held.
It further held that the Member-Secretary of the SLSA could not rely upon the NLSA Model Scheme to direct that 75% of the compensation amount be kept in a fixed deposit for 10 years.
The Court noted that the NLSA Model Scheme prescribed a minimum period of only three years for keeping a percentage of the compensation in fixed deposit, and also contained exceptions permitting victims to utilise the blocked funds for specified purposes. Further, the maximum compensation under the NLSA Scheme was higher than that provided under the West Bengal Scheme.
The Bench observed that although the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India had directed all States and Union Territories to implement the NLSA Model Scheme, West Bengal had not yet adopted the Model Scheme or amended its 2017 Scheme.
"Therefore, the learned Judge rightly held that the impugned directions issued by the Member-Secretary, SLSA, are dehors the West Bengal Scheme and bad in law," the Bench held.
Case: The Member-Secretary, State Legal Service Authority, West Bengal & Anr. Vs. Achiya Bibi @ Achiya Sardar & Others
Case No: MAT 510 of 2020