"Limitation Can't Defeat Justice": J&K High Court Gives Hope to Family of 2003 Terror Victim

In a ruling that underscores the boundless reach of constitutional courts, the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Jammu has quashed a mechanical rejection of ex-gratia compensation for the family of a young woman gunned down by militants over two decades ago. Justice M A Chowdhary directed authorities to reconsider the claim under the Central Scheme for civilian terror victims, rejecting limitation as a barrier in writ proceedings. The decision, pronounced on February 9, 2026, in Sabza Begum & anr. v. State (UT) of J&K & ors. , offers long-overdue solace to petitioners still reeling from the 2003 tragedy.

A Night of Militant Fury in Poonch

The nightmare unfolded on July 27, 2003, in Fazal-Abad, Surankote tehsil, Poonch district. Armed militants stormed the home of Sabza Begum, a 72-year-old Special Police Officer (SPO) in the police's SOG wing, beat her brutally, shot dead her 28-year-old daughter Zubeda Begum, and torched the house. An FIR (No. 127/2003) was lodged at Surankote police station under Sections 302, 307, 120-B, 122, 436 RPC and Arms Act provisions.

The family received ₹1 lakh as initial ex-gratia aid. But pleas for the balance—₹4 lakh—languished. A 2011 writ petition (OWP 816/2011) prompted a 2016 court order directing the District Development Commissioner (DDC), Poonch, to review the claim. Instead, a 2017 order (No. DCP/Rel/809-11) rejected it as time-barred under various SROs (43/1994, 199/2008, 177/2014), without probing eligibility under welfare schemes. This sparked the current petition (OWP 999/2018).

Petitioners' Heart-Wrenching Plea: Beyond Time Limits

Counsel for Sabza Begum and her son Zakir Hussain Malik argued the rejection was arbitrary and insensitive. Zubeda, an innocent civilian uninvolved in militancy, was killed because her mother aided counter-insurgency efforts. They highlighted the Revised Guidelines of the Central Scheme for Assistance to Civilian Victims/Family of Terrorist Violence (2019), entitling families to ₹3 lakh for pre-2016 deaths, irrespective of prior aid, income, or timelines (relaxable in deserving cases). Delay stemmed from trauma, they urged, and as a welfare state, Jammu & Kashmir owed full relief under public law remedies for Article 21 violations.

They sought quashing of the order, ₹4 lakh plus 12% interest, and ₹20 lakh for state security lapses.

State's Counter: Rules Are Rules, Claim Too Late

Respondents, represented by Senior AAG Monika Kohli, countered that only ₹1 lakh was due then, and higher claims failed SRO eligibility: late filing (13+ years post-death), Zubeda not a breadwinner, family income exceeded limits. The District Level Coordination cum Screening Committee (DLCCSC) endorsed rejection on timelines. No central scheme was pleaded, nor the Centre impleaded. The petition was dubbed frivolous.

Unleashing Article 226: Court's Expansive Vision of Justice

Justice Chowdhary invoked Supreme Court precedents to affirm writ powers' sweep. In Dwarka Nath v. ITO (AIR 1966 SC 81), Article 226 enables reaching "injustice wherever found," molding relief for India's needs. Air India v. United Labour Union (1997) 9 SCC 377 stressed self-imposed limits only. Crucially, Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993) 2 SCC 746 established public law compensation for right-to-life breaches via strict liability, bypassing sovereign immunity—aimed at "balm to wounds," not punishment.

The court lambasted the DDC's order as mechanical, fixated on limitation without merits review or Central Scheme consideration. Victims, it noted, aren't "out of their trauma" to file promptly; state functionaries must inquire suo motu.

Recent parallels bolstered: Patna HC's ₹10 lakh in Amar Nath Poddar v. State of Bihar (2021); this court's directions in Yaar Mohammad Kataria (OWP 1979/2017) and Uri Foundation PIL for IED/cross-border victims.

Scrutinizing the 2019 Scheme's Clause 4, petitioners qualified: family of civilian terror death, prior ex-gratia no bar, timelines relaxable.

Key Observations from the Bench

"On such a technical plea, the claim of the petitioners should not have been rejected as it is the duty and obligation of the state functionaries to consider the matter and take steps even at their own level after conducting inquiry to compensate the victims of the terrorism. It is generally not expected from the victims to approach the officers within the prescribed period as they are not out of their trauma..."

"The plea of the respondents... with regard to limitation in the considered opinion of this court is not applicable before this court under writ jurisdiction."

"The compensation shall be assessed and sanction order shall be passed so that the petitioners who have been craving for the compensation for the last more than 22 years are given some succor for the injuries inflicted on their family by the terrorists way back in the year 2003."

Relief After 22 Years: Fresh Review Ordered

The court quashed the 2017 order as arbitrary, directing expeditious reassessment under the 2019 Central Scheme. District authorities must sanction via DM/DC procedure, reimbursable by Ministry of Home Affairs.

This sets precedent: technicalities yield to substantive justice for terror victims. Families can now bypass rigid timelines in writs, ensuring welfare schemes deliver. As other reports note, it rebukes "wholly insensitive" rejections, prioritizing constitutional succor.