Back
slams for to Hathras relocation
The on Monday delivered a stern rebuke to the , directing it to rehabilitate and relocate the family of the Hathras gang rape and murder victim to Ghaziabad or Noida within three months. The Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh found the State’s conduct to be marked by “” in complying with earlier court orders, and set aside the government’s decision that had offered only Kasganj, Etah, or Aligarh as relocation options—none of which addressed the family’s express request for Ghaziabad or Gautam Buddh Nagar.
The court warned that the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) must file a , and if the direction is not obeyed, he will have to appear personally on the next date. The matter, part of proceedings initiated in concerning the right to dignified last rites, is now listed for .
Background: The Hathras Tragedy and Intervention
The case arises from the brutal gang rape and murder of a 19-year-old Dalit woman in Hathras, Uttar Pradesh, in . The incident sparked nationwide outrage after it emerged that her body was cremated in the early hours of , in circumstances that appeared to bypass the wishes of her family. The took cognisance, primarily to examine the right to decent and dignified cremation under .
Over time, the proceedings expanded to include the family’s safety, rehabilitation, and relocation. In , the court directed the to consider relocating the family outside Hathras, keeping in mind their social and economic rehabilitation and the educational needs of the children. The family had expressed a desire to move to Noida, citing safety concerns and the fact that other relatives already resided there.
A Pattern of Resistance: The State’s
Despite multiple orders—dated , , and —the State failed to properly consider the family’s request for relocation to Ghaziabad or Noida. The family submitted a formal application before the District Magistrate, Hathras on , seeking rehabilitation in Ghaziabad or Gautam Buddh Nagar. However, the State’s decision offered only Kasganj, Etah, and Aligarh—places the family had not opted for.
The court observed that the decision “in fact is no decision ” because it did not even contain a cursory reference to the family’s request. The Bench noted: “There appears to be an by the State to a consideration as was ordered by us.” The court further stated that the State’s conduct gave credence to the family’s assertion that the government was treating the matter as “” and was “adamant not to grant” benefits to the victim’s family.
Court’s Order: Directing Relocation and Employment
Finding the State’s response inadequate, the High Court went beyond simply asking the government to reconsider. It set aside the February 22 decision and directed the State to rehabilitate and relocate the victim’s family in Ghaziabad or Noida “positively within three months.” The court also ordered that, upon relocation, employment must be provided to one family member in accordance with the order.
The Bench further clarified its earlier observation regarding the availability of a remedy before the . The court held that where “ exist,” the High Court can intervene—and such circumstances were present here due to the State’s “” and non‑compliance. The matter has been adjourned for , allowing time for compliance.
Legal Implications: Judicial Oversight and Executive Accountability
This ruling underscores the judiciary’s willingness to enforce its earlier directions through specific timelines and personal accountability for senior government officials. By requiring the Additional Chief Secretary (Home) to file the and warning of , the court has signalled that executive resistance to court orders in sensitive cases will not be tolerated.
The case also illustrates the expansive scope of Article 21, encompassing not only the right to a dignified death but also the right to a secure and dignified life for the survivors of crime. The High Court’s insistence on considering the family’s specific relocation request—rather than imposing alternatives—reinforces the principle that victim-centric rehabilitation must be responsive to the actual needs and preferences of the affected persons.
Impact on Legal Practice and Victim Rehabilitation
For legal professionals, this judgment serves as a reminder of the effectiveness of proceedings in addressing systemic failures. It also highlights the importance of clearly recording victim preferences and ensuring that executive decisions are not merely formalistic. The three‑month compliance deadline and the threat of of a high‑ranking bureaucrat set a precedent that may encourage similar judicial monitoring in other public interest matters.
The Hathras case remains a landmark in the discourse on victims’ rights within the criminal justice system. The High Court’s persistent oversight—despite the State’s repeated delays—demonstrates that the judiciary can act as a powerful counterweight when executive bodies fail to discharge their duties with the required sensitivity.
Conclusion
The ’s latest order marks a significant step toward ensuring that the family of the Hathras victim finally receives the relocation and rehabilitation they have been seeking for over two years. By cutting through the State’s “” and setting a hard deadline, the court has reaffirmed that the right to live with dignity does not end with a judgment—it requires meaningful, timely action from the government. The legal community will watch closely to see whether the complies within the three‑month window, or faces the further consequences the court has threatened.
