Release Victim Compensation Within A Week Or We'll Attach Treasury Accounts: Kerala High Court Warns State, Summons Finance Secy

The Kerala High Court on Monday (March 16) remarked that it would pass orders to attach the Treasury accounts of the State government in case the amounts due to the Victim Compensation Fund and the fees to the mediators are not paid within a week.

Division bench of Chief Justice Soumen Sen and Justice Syam Kumar V.M. was hearing two pleas, including a suo motu petition concerning the infrastructural requirements of mediation centres, adequate support staff and regular office stationary.

Last week, the Court had summoned the State's Home Secretary, noting the unsatisfactory progress with regard to the payment of fee to the Mediator and victim compensation.

Accordingly, the Additional Secretary of the Home department had appeared online today and explained that it is the Finance department, which has to sanction the amounts and the Home department is only a nodal department for regulating, administering and monitoring the Victim Compensation scheme.

The Bench then passed an interim order asking the Secretary of the State's Finance Department to personally appear before it and file an affidavit explaining the reason for not releasing the funds/payments. It was also remarked that it would pass orders attaching the Treasury accounts in case the funds are not released within a week:

"we direct the secretary to the government finance department be personally present with an affidavit explaining the reason for not releasing the victim compensation and also the funds of the mediator. In the event that the funds are not released within a period of one week, we shall be constrained to pass appropriate orders for attaching the Treasury accounts to the extent due on such funds."

The Court also pulled up the State for the delay in payment of Rs. 47 crores due as compensation for victims. The senior government pleader submitted before the Court that as per Rule 3(2) of the Kerala Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, the fund has to come from six heads under clauses (a) to (f), including State's budgetary allocations, fines imposed by criminal courts, CSR funds, etc.

Hearing the submission, Justice Sen orally remarked:

"How you will interpret the Rule is your headache, that is not our headache. You were supposed to release the statutory dues...We are not here to go through the legal provisions to find out why it is not being paid. We are of the concern why it is not paid...You have to see the colour of the money. We will not go through any rules, we want the money...Whatever you may submit, we will attach the treasury account."

The State reiterated that the funds are not forthcoming from the heads contemplated under the Scheme and individuals victim compensation cases are being made through the budgetary allocation of the State.

"Victim compensation fund is a liability that the State has to pay. Do you mean to say that unless these (a) to (f) are met, you won't be paying the victim compensation? If (b) to (f) are not met, it is your responsibility to pay it from the budgetary allocation...What voice is there to say that the contributions from corporate agencies have to come so as to meet the Victim compensation fund?...No need to exert on the provision because it says that if at all no fund is coming from any donation or any charity, it is the responsibility of the State to meet it from the budgetary allocations. We are speaking of victim compensation fund," Justice Syam orally questioned.

The Court orally told the State that it is the State's responsibility to ensure that there is sufficient money in the fund and otherwise, the purpose of the Victim Compensation Scheme would be defeated:

"You may argue endlessly, we don't mind. But we want to see the money. We are not convinced with your submission....You have not even disclosed whether you have received any money on fines? Suppose in a year, there is no fine, so victim compensation will not be paid? Suppose no donation is received, so victim compensation will not be paid? This will defeat the object of the Act. It is whose responsibility? It is your responsibility. It is not the responsibility of KeLSA (Kerala State Legal Services Authority). KeLSA shall only operationalize. There is no account in which, unless the Court directs, for the funds to go to KeLSA."

The senior government pleader submitted to the Court that its assistance is needed to formulate a mechanism to ensure there are sufficient funds. However, the Court reiterated that it's the State's responsibility to find funds:

"You have to find the fund. It is your responsibility...That is for you to formulate a mechanism...Then you have to open a mint and print the currency. The Court will open a mint?"

The Bench also orally questioned the State why an OSD (Officer on Special Duty) instead of an officer capable of taking decisions was sent for a meeting held by the KeLSA and included the Chief Justice of Kerala and other senior judges of the High Court.

"Subordinate officer was sent to the meeting. I asked him whether he was in a position to take a decision, he said no. So while the Home Secretary or the Finance Secretary should have been present. All these meetings you are sending, when the Chief Justice is presiding over the meeting, you are sending someone who cannot take a decision. What kind of courtesy is shown to the Bench?...This only shows the importance you are attaching to these kind of meetings, I am sorry to say," the Court orally asked.

In its interim order, the Court observed: 

"On 11th March, 2026, a meeting was held by the Kerala State Legal Services Authority in which the State, represented by the OSD (Finance), instead of the Secretary to the government finance department, was present. The OSD Finance was unable to take any decision or communicate any decision. It is unfortunate that when such a meeting was presided over by the Chief Justice of this Court along with senior judges constituting the Committee, the government has sent the OSD finance instead of the Secretary to the government finance department. This Court deems such action inappropriate..."

With respect to honorarium of Rs. 10 crores, which is due to the mediators, the Court orally questioned the State:

"How many times have request has been made that you release the money? Have you seen the infrastructure issue of it? Where in your affidavit you have stated the infrastructure we have asked for? Again, you will show us statute that Rules does not permit? State has no obligation to discharge? It has to come from contributions, donations, NGO, voluntary organisations?"

The senior government pleader submitted that the finance department has to sanction the amount and a separate affidavit can be filed within 3 days in addressing the infrastructural issues as well.

The matter was then adjourned and posted after a week.

Case Title: Suo Motu v. State of Kerala and Ors. and connected case

Case No: WP(C) 42844/ 2025 and WP(C) 48551/ 2025

Counsel for respondents: O.M. Shalina (DSGI), Shibi K.P., Leo Lukose - KeLSA, Ramola Nayanpally - Kerala State Mediation and Conciliation Centre, Vinitha B. (Sr. GP), N. Manoj Kumar

Amicus Curiae: Adarsh Kumar