'Policy Decision': Delhi High Court Declines Plea For Compensation, Public Employment Benefits To Kin Of Those Killed In Terror Attacks

Update: 2026-04-29 08:00 GMT
Click the Play button to listen to article
story

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking compensation and public employment benefits to the families and kin of victims killed in terror attacks in the national capital. A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the prayers made fall in the realm of policy decision and cannot be entertained in...

Your free access to Live Law has expired
Please Subscribe for unlimited access to Live Law Archives, Weekly/Monthly Digest, Exclusive Notifications, Comments, Ad Free Version, Petition Copies, Judgement/Order Copies.

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday refused to entertain a public interest litigation seeking compensation and public employment benefits to the families and kin of victims killed in terror attacks in the national capital.

A division bench comprising Chief Justice DK Upadhyaya and Justice Tejas Karia observed that the prayers made fall in the realm of policy decision and cannot be entertained in a writ petition.

The Court was dealing with a PIL filed by South Asian Forum For People Against Terror, raising issues relating to grant of compensation to the families of the victims of such attacks.

The plea also sought that concession may be given to survivors of victims, as well as their family members, in public employment.

Senior Advocate Ramesh Gupta appearing for the Society cited the recent red fort attack and submitted that at present, there are no guidelines or fixed policy of the Union Government or the Delhi Government for compensation or public employment benefits to kin of victims.

At the outset, the Court remarked that the prayers sought are all necessary administrative functions and that there is a difference between already existing rights and creation of rights.

These are all policy decisions. Can Courts issue such directions that Mr. Vashisht (Delhi Government Standing Counsel) frame this policy? You make a representation (to the authorities) and that may be considered,” the Court said.

As Gupta submitted that similar guidelines have been framed by the Goa Government as well, the Court said that a representation must be made to the authorities of Union and Delhi Governments and that Court cannot enter into policy realm.

All prayers made in the writ petition lie in the realm of policy decision which is primarily the reserve and prerogative of the government,” the Court said.

Without making any observations on the merits of the claim made in the plea, the Court permitted the Society to make a representation within a fortnight to the competent authorities of Union of India and Delhi Government for redressal of the grievances.

Once such representation is made, the same shall be attended to and appropriate decision as may be warranted and permissible in law be taken by the authorities with expedition,” the Court said.

The PIL was accordingly disposed of.

Title: South Asian Forum For People Against Terror v. Union of India & Ors

Full View
Tags:    

Similar News