Back
2011 (6) Supreme 78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. V. Raveendran and A.K. Patnaik, JJ.
State of Rajasthan & Ors. — Appellants
versus
Sanyam Lodha — Respondent
Civil Appeal No.7333 of 2011
[Arising out of SLP [C] No.12721/2009]
Decided on : 25-8-2011
Public interest litigation- Writ petition filed by a Legislator and social activist complaining of arbitrary and discriminatory disbursement of relief under the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund under the Rajasthan Chief Minister’s Relief Fund Rules, 1999 - Respondent alleged that if Chief Minister was of 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-Allowed by High Court-Appeal-Plea of appellant that High Court was not right in holding that all victims should be “treated equally” while granting relief under Chief Minister’s Relief Fund-. The provisions relating to punishment for offences under criminal law have no bearing upon grant of ex-gratia monetary benefit to some of the victims- Assumption that all cases of rape involving victims under twelve years are liable to be punished identically under the Code, is not correct- Section 376(2)(f) no doubt refers to rape of girl/child under age of twelve years as one category, for award of a more severe punishment, but does not provide for a fixed quantum of punishment- The sentence may vary for any period between life and ten years-Therefore assumption that no distinction is made in regard to either punishment under the Code where the victim is under twelve years of age, and therefore, all such victims should get an equal amount as monetary relief, held to be erroneous- Appeal allowed. (Paras 13, 14)
Public interest litigation- Writ petition filed by a Legislator and social activist complaining of arbitrary and discriminatory disbursement of relief under the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund under the Rajasthan Chief Minister’s Relief Fund Rules, 1999 - Respondent alleged that if Chief Minister was of 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-Allowed by High Court-Appeal-Held Having regard to the scheme of the Relief Fund Rules, grant and disbursal of relief amount under said Relief Fund Rules is purely ex gratia, at the discretion of the Chief Minister-The Relief Fund Rules do not create any right in any victim to demand or claim monetary relief under the fund- Nor do the Rules provide any scheme for grant of compensation to victims of rape or other unfortunate circumstances- Having regard to nature and scheme of Relief Fund and purposes for which Relief Fund is intended, it may not be possible to provide relief from Relief Fund, for all the affected persons of a particular category- It is not possible to hold that if one victim of a particular category is given a particular monetary relief under Relief Fund Rules, every victim in that category should be granted relief or that all victims should be granted identical relief- Mere fact that in two cases of rape involving extreme viciousness and depravity, high compensation had been granted having regard to gravity of offence and the surrounding circumstances, is by itself not sufficient to interfere with the discretion of the Chief Minister-Impugned order of High Court set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 15, 20 to 25)
Facts of the Case :
Writ petition was filed herein in the instant case by a Legislator and social activist complaining of arbitrary and discriminatory disbursement of relief under the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund under the Rajasthan Chief Minister’s Relief Fund Rules, 1999 . Respondent alleged that during the period January 2004 to August, 2005,chargesheets were filed in 392 cases relating to rape of minor girls and that out of them, 377 minor girls, did not get any relief or assistance from Relief Fund, 13 were granted relief ranging from Rs.10,000 to 50,000, one victim was given Rs.3,95,000 and another victim was given Rs.5,00,000 . Respondent alleged that if Chief Minister was of 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. Said writ petition was allowed by High Court.
2. Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.
Findings of the Court :
The Court held that having regard to the scheme of the Relief Fund Rules, grant and disbursal of relief amount under said Relief Fund Rules is purely ex gratia, at the discretion of the Chief Minister. The Relief Fund Rules do not create any right in any victim to demand or claim monetary relief under the fund. Nor do the Rules provide any scheme for grant of compensation to victims of rape or other unfortunate circumstances. Having regard to nature and scheme of Relief Fund and purposes for which Relief Fund is intended, it may not be possible to provide relief from Relief Fund, for all the affected persons of a particular category. It is not possible to hold that if one victim of a particular category is given a particular monetary relief under Relief Fund Rules, every victim in that category should be granted relief or that all victims should be granted identical relief. Mere fact that in two cases of rape involving extreme viciousness and depravity, high compensation had been granted having regard to gravity of offence and the surrounding circumstances, is by itself not sufficient to interfere with the discretion of the Chief Minister. Impugned order of High Court was set aside. Appeal was allowed.
JUDGMENT
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.
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 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 utilization of the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund with a direction to the Chief Minister to adopt a fair and non discriminatory policy in regard to disbursement of amounts from the Relief Fund to similarly situated persons, in particular minor victims of rape.
5. The appellants resisted the writ petition contending that disburse
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
