Judgment :

1. The inadequacies of interim compensation (or ex gratia) paid to two gang raped girls is the subject matter of this special leave petition. The order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh records the submission made on behalf of the State Government that by way of an interim relief, payment of Rs. 2 lakhs has been granted to the two girl victims. The State Government also stated before the High Court that it would take care of the victims in future also.

2. The girl victims were school going children belonging to poor families. They were gang raped by 16 persons. Since the issue in the special leave petition is confined to compensation to these victims, we are not inclined to undertake the larger issue relating to framing of uniform social security schemes by the States to such victims. We are informed that a group of Writ Petitions is already pending before this Court on this aspect.

3. Coming back to the aspect of compensation, suffice it to say that amount of Rs. 2 Lakhs each to the two victims by way of compensation (the petitioner, who appears in-person, states that the said payment is ex gratia) is, in our opinion, too low and grossly inadequate. The traumatic stress which a gang rape victim undergoes every moment of her life cannot be compensated by any amount. As a matter of fact, no amount of money can restore dignity and confidence of a rape victim. However, certain measures like adequate compensation, insurance and social security schemes may help in rehabilitating rape victim to some extent.

4. Before the matter is considered further having regard to all relevant aspects and considerations, we are of the view that the two victims should be given compensation of Rs. 10 Lakhs each by the State. We, accordingly, direct the respondent No. 1 (State of Madhya Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Department of Home Affairs) to make payment of balance amount of Rs. 8 Lakhs to each of the two victims within one month from today.

5. While perusing the affidavit filed on July 30, 2013 on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh, one aspect has troubled us. In paragraph 4 of that affidavit, the names of the victims have been disclosed.

6. Section 228A of the Indian Penal Code makes disclosure of identity of the victim against whom offences under Section 376, Section 376A, Section 376B, Section 376C or Section 376D is alleged or found to have been committed an offence. Sub-section (2) of Section 228A IPC exempts two categories of police officers, namely, (i) officer in-charge of the police station and

(ii) police officer making the investigation into such offence.

7. The affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh has been affirmed by Shri Arvind Tiwari, Additional Superintendent of Police, Mhow, District Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Let notice be issued to him to show cause why offence under Section 228A IPC be not directed to be registered against him for disclosing identity of the two rape victims.

8. Response must be filed by him within four weeks of receipt of the notice.

9. List this matter for further consideration on September 20, 2013.