Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.7333 OF 2011

[Arising out of SLP [C] No.12721/2009]

State of Rajasthan & Ors.

… Appellants

Vs.

Sanyam Lodha

… Respondent

J U D G M E N T

R.V. RAVEENDRAN J.

Delay condoned. Leave granted.

2.

This appeal arises from a decision of the Rajasthan High Court in a

public interest litigation filed by a Legislator and social activist complaining

of arbitrary and discriminatory disbursement of relief under the Chief

Minister’s Relief Fund (for short ‘Relief fund’) under the Rajasthan Chief

Minister’s Relief Fund Rules, 1999 (for short, ‘the Relief Fund Rules’). The

respondent alleged that during the period January 2004 to August, 2005,

challans/chargesheets were filed in 392 cases relating to rape of minor girls;

that out of them, 377 minor girls, did not get any relief or assistance from

the Relief Fund, 13 were granted relief ranging from Rs.10,000 to 50,000,

one victim (minor ‘K’) was given Rs.3,95,000 on 11.8.2004 and another

victim (minor ‘S’) was given Rs.5,00,000 on 25.6.2005.

3.

The appellant submitted that minor girls, that too victims of rape,

belong to a weak and vulnerable group who are seldom in a position to seek

relief personally; and that if the Chief Minister was of the view that

monetary relief should be granted to such victims of heinous and depraved

crimes, all similar victims of rape should be given monetary relief.

According to him if there were 392 victims of rape, they should all be

similarly treated and if some are given relief, others also should be given

similar relief. It is contended that when discretion vested in the Chief

Minister in respect of the Relief Fund is exercised in a manner that 377

victims are ignored and 13 are paid amounts varying from Rs.10,000 to

50,000 and two victims alone are paid Rs.3,95,000 and Rs.5,00,000, it leads

to inferences of arbitrariness and discrimination.

2

4.

The appellant does not have any grievance about payment of

Rs.5,00,000 or Rs.3,95,000 to two of the victims. It is also not his complaint

that the said two victims were undeserving. His grievance is the other way

around. According to him if two of the victims were paid relief amounts in

the range of Rs.3,95,000 and Rs.5,00,000, there was no justification for not

paying any amount to 377 victims, or for paying amounts which were

comparatively very small (that is Rs.10,000 to 50,000) in the case of thirteen

victims. He contended that like other governmental resources or funds, the

distribution or monetary relief under the Relief Fund should be equitable,

non-discriminatory and non-arbitrary. He submitted that paying very high

amounts in only one or two cases merely because of media focus on those

cases or because the case had become caste-sensitive or because it was

politically expedient, while ignoring other similar cases, was neither

warranted nor justified. He also contended that disbursement of monetary

relief to the victims cannot be in the absolute discretion or according to the

whims and fancies of the Chief Minister and grant of monetary relief under

the Relief Fund should not become distribution of government largesse to a

favoured few. The respondent therefore filed a writ petition (impleading the

appellants, namely the State of Rajasthan, Home Ministry of the State and

3

Secretary to the Chief Minister, as the respondents), seeking the following

reliefs :

(i)

a direction to the appellants to give to all rape victims, who had not

been granted any monetary relief or who had been granted a negligibly small

relief, monetary relief of Rs.5 lakhs as in the case of ‘minor K’;

(ii)

for a declaration that failure to give monetary relief, or failure to give

a uniform monetary help, to all victims of rape from the Relief Fund is

illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional; and

(iii)

for deprecation of the misuse or discriminatory