Justice is often perceived as complete once court delivers its verdict. Yet, the true measure of Justice lies in its ability to address the harm suffered by the victim through meaningful restitution, rehabilitation, and support. In this regard, Victim Compensation has become an Integral component of contemporary Criminal Justice Systems, marking a transition from offender-centric models to victim-oriented frameworks that acknowledge and address the rights, needs, and rehabilitation of victims.

However, A Judicial Intervention has exposed the structural passivity that plague's victim compensation framework in India. On 9.11.2025, A bench comprising Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan have observed in Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole vs. Union of India, WP (Civil) No.989 of 2025^[1] that one of the most persistent obstacles to the actual disbursement of victim compensation is the routine failure of our special court and sessions courts to issue directions for such compensation at the conclusion of trial. As a consequence, victims are left to independently navigate compensation machinery, whether through an application to State Legal Services Authority through the District Legal Services Authority or the Taluk Legal Services Authority, as the case may be.

The Supreme Court, taking cognisance of the gap between this statutory empowerment and its ground-level exercise, issued a direct direction: Special and Sessions Courts must pass appropriate orders regarding victim compensation in suitable cases, so that implementation through the District Legal Services Authority or the Taluk Legal Services Authority can follow without further delay or procedural obstruction.

Statutory Provisions and Judicial Pronouncements

Section 396 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 which replaced Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 imposes a clear statutory obligation: 'Every State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, must maintain a scheme to compensate victims or their dependants who have suffered loss or injury as a result of crime and who require rehabilitation.' Sessions courts and Special courts, including those constituted under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, are expressly empowered to recommend compensation at the conclusion of trial where the fine prescribed under the penal statute is insufficient for the victim's rehabilitation. These Provisions represent a transition from predominately punitive framework toward victim -oriented model of justice and restorative justice. Victim Compensation Schemes are State administered and are designed to ensure that victims are not denied relief due to the financial incapacity of the perpetrator.

Judicial Intervention Bolstering victim compensation in India. In Nipun Saxena vs Union of India, The Supreme Court laid down that NALSA's Compensation Scheme for Women/Victims should function as a guideline to the Special Courts for the award of compensation of victims of child sexual abuse. In Ankush Shivaji Gaiwad vs State of Maharashtra^[2], the Supreme Court held that courts to award victim compensation in each criminal prosecution and mandatory consideration. Similarly, in Laxmi vs Union of India & Others^[3], The Supreme Court issued directions to all States and Union Territories to strengthen the implementation of victim compensation schemes.

In Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl.13890 of 2024)^[4], decided by bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and Pankaj Mithal on November 2024, the Court perused the Order and Judgment of the Trial Court and found that no direction for payment of victim compensation was ordered. 'Such a lapse on the part of Sessions Court would only delay payment of any compensation under Section 357-A of the CrPC.'

But, why does the problem persist despite the law, the scheme and repeated judicial interventions?

Lack of Awareness

Most existing research focuses on the statutory and theoretical framework of victim compensation. however, they often fail to critically compare the implementation efficiency, institutional design, and practical outcomes of compensation schemes across jurisdictions.

The Victims Predominantly experience severe financial hardships, such lost wages, medical expense, immediate economic burdens on victims, which necessitate structured and accessible compensation frameworks. The Major issue is the delay in disbursement of compensation, this often caused by complex procedure, administrative inefficiencies and lack of awareness among victims regarding this scheme as mentioned in observed in Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole vs. Union of India, WP (Civil) No.989 of 2025^[5]:

'We find that one of the impediments in disbursement of victim compensation to the victims is the absence of a direction being issued by the Special Courts/Session Courts to pay compensation to the victims of a crime. Consequently, the victims have to seek such compensation on their own, either by making an application to the State Legal Services Authority or by any other means known to law. There is also an absence of awareness in this regard.'

Many individuals from marginalized communities, remain unaware and oblivious of their entitlements and this resulting in underutilization of the system. The lack of awareness extends to police personnel, prosecutors and even some members of lower Judiciary, who are crucial in guiding victims. Contribution to these delays are bureaucratic inefficiencies, lack of coordination among authorities and inadequate structure.

Role of Police and Prosecution Police personnel, often the first point of contact for victims, are not always adequately sensitized or trained to inform victims about their compensation rights or assist them in the application process. To address this, the police authorities to inform victims of their compensation rights at the time of FIR registration and standardized information sheet provided to victims.

Delays in Disbursement of Victim compensation

Timeline for Disposal, and there is no mechanism for automatic escalation, no deemed grant provision. The Supreme Court in Suresh v. State of Haryana [Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2012, decided 28.11.2014]^[6] emphasised that compensation must serve the purpose of rehabilitation, which requires timeliness. A compensation amount awarded three years after a murder provides diminished rehabilitative value compared to the same amount awarded within sixty days.

Section 396(5) BNSS: 'the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.' Mandates completion of the inquiry within two months but provides no deadline for actual payment thereafter. There is no binding Supreme Court order with penal consequences for non-compliance currently governs general victim compensation disbursement timelines. This gap remains one of the most consequential structural lacunae in the existing framework. So, it is essential to introduce mandatory statutory timeline for compensation processing.

The path forward requires a convergence of administrative accountability, legislative precision and psycho-social sensitivity. Effective implementation also requires sensitization of various government departments, ensuring coordinated institutional support and enabling to fulfil its rehabilitative purpose

1.Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole vs. Union of India, WP (Civil) No.989 of 2025 ↑

2. Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 2013 SC 2454 ↑

3. Laxmi v. Union of India & Others AIR 2015 SC 3662 ↑

4. Saibaj Noormohammad Shaikh vs State of Maharashtra (SLP Crl.13890 of 2024) ↑

5. Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole vs. Union of India, WP (Civil) No.989 of 2025 ↑

6. Suresh v. State of Haryana (Criminal Appeal No. 420 of 2012) ↑

Author is an Advocate practicing at Madurai and a Regional Coordinator in GNE-India. Views are personal.