Back
Orders State-Wide Inquiry Into SC/ST Relief Misuse After Advocate's Claims
The has ruled that have the power to scrutinise the adequacy of relief paid to victims, setting aside a trial court order that had erroneously declined to examine the balance compensation claim. In a significant judgment that also flagged potential misuse of the beneficial scheme, Justice Santosh Rai directed a thorough inquiry after noting that a lawyer and his family had collectively received over ₹23 lakh in across multiple criminal cases, with 10 to 12 more claims pending.
Special Court's Power to Assess Relief
The controversy arose from two criminal appeals filed by Arvind Kumar, Atul Raj, and , challenging the rejection of their applications seeking release of the remaining 37.5% of the relief amount. In each case, the investigating officer had proposed a relief of ₹2 lakh per victim under Item No. 41 of the Schedule to . The scheme mandates 25% payment at the FIR stage, 50% upon filing of charge-sheet, and the remaining 25% upon conviction. Thus, ₹1.5 lakh per victim had become due at the charge-sheet stage itself.
However, the District Social Welfare Officer, Jhansi, released only ₹75,000—restricting payment to 37.5% of the assessed amount. Despite repeated representations, the balance amount was not paid, compelling the victims to move applications under Rules 12(4) and 12(7) before the .
The Special Judge rejected these applications, holding that it would not be proper for the court to determine the nature of the offence or fix or enhance the quantum of , and that a direction to the would not be in accordance with law.
' ' Mandated by Rules
The High Court disagreed fundamentally with this approach. Justice Santosh Rai examined , which provides that the District Magistrate or Superintendent of Police shall forward a report on to the Special Court. The provision empowers the court, if satisfied that payment was not made in time, was insufficient, or only part payment was made, to direct full or part payment.
"On a plain reading, the provision is not merely enabling but is couched in terms that contemplate
by the Special Court of the adequacy and timeliness of relief disbursed,"
the court observed.
The judgment emphasised that Rule 12(7) was
"specifically engrafted into the scheme of the Rules of 1995 to provide a
against under-payment, delayed payment or arbitrary curtailment of statutory relief by the administrative authorities."
The Special Judge's order, founded on a
, was therefore unsustainable.
The Double-Edged Sword: Beneficial Scheme vs. Potential Misuse
While allowing the appeals, the court took serious note of a disclosure made by the State Government. It was brought to the court's notice that the applicant , a lawyer, along with his family members, had received a cumulative sum of ₹23,36,250 by way of relief under the 1995 Rules and connected schemes across various criminal cases registered from time to time. Moreover, approximately 10 to 12 further cases involving Dohrey or his family were pending before the for grant of additional relief.
The court acknowledged that repeated registration of cases does not by itself establish misuse.
"Nonetheless, the scale and frequency disclosed in the present proceedings are such that they cannot be left unexamined, lest the object of the
be defeated by its exploitation,"
the bench remarked.
Directions: Fresh Determination and State-Wide Probe
The High Court set aside the impugned order dated and remitted the matter to the Special Judge for fresh consideration within six weeks. The Special Judge has been directed to examine the nature and ingredients of each offence and determine whether the applicable compensation is ₹1 lakh or ₹2 lakh under the relevant schedule entries. This determination must not be mechanical but must consider the substance of allegations and ingredients of offences.
Simultaneously, the court directed the District Magistrate, Jhansi, in coordination with the Senior Superintendent of Police, to conduct a thorough, fair, and time-bound inquiry into the antecedents of the criminal cases registered by and his family members and the relief amounts received or claimed. This inquiry must be completed within three months.
In a broader move, the court directed the
to undertake a
"broad-based and intensive enquiry throughout the State"
and develop an effective regulatory mechanism and supervisory system in every district to scrutinise how benefits under the
and Rules are claimed and disbursed, particularly in cases involving repeated claims by the same persons or their family members. The inquiry shall also examine whether adequate verification and scrutiny are undertaken before release of public funds.
The Registrar General of the High Court has been directed to circulate copies of the judgment to all District Judges, District Magistrates, SSPs, Police Commissioners, and Special Judges in Uttar Pradesh, as well as to the Chief Secretary and Principal Secretaries of the Home and Law departments.
Key Observations from the Judgment
-
"Rule 12(7) of the Rules of 1995 ... expressly and specifically confers jurisdiction upon the Special Court ... to satisfy itself ... whether relief has been paid or disbursed ... or whether the relief or compensation is adequate, or whether only a part of the relief or compensation has been paid, and ... to direct payment of the balance amount."
(Para 8) -
"The provision is not merely enabling but is couched in terms that contemplate
by the Special Court of the adequacy and timeliness of relief disbursed."
(Para 16) -
"Recurrent registration of criminal cases followed by claims for relief, without more, does not by itself establish misuse; nonetheless, the scale and frequency disclosed in the present proceedings are such that they cannot be left unexamined, lest the object of the
be defeated by its exploitation."
(Para 18) -
"The
... are intended to provide immediate relief, rehabilitation and
to
. Such
cannot, however, be permitted to be misused for obtaining financial benefits from the State exchequer."
(Para 23) -
"The Special Judge,
of every district ... shall also remain conscious of the possibility of misuse of the
... and to ensure that the
are extended to genuine victims in accordance with law and are not converted into a means for obtaining unwarranted financial benefits."
(Para 24)
The judgment marks a crucial balance between enforcing the statutory rights of genuine atrocity victims and safeguarding the against potential abuse, reinforcing the role of Special Courts as vigilant guardians of the legislative scheme.
