'Shocking' Technicality Can't Deny Justice: Rajasthan HC Orders Compensation for Minor Rape Survivor

In a strongly worded judgment that underscores the trauma inflicted on rape survivors ( S D/o A v State of Rajasthan & Ors. , 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 134), the Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur quashed a District Legal Services Authority (DLSA) order rejecting interim compensation to a 14-year-old rape victim. Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand expressed "shock and surprise" at the DLSA's casual rejection, directing a victim-friendly approach without bureaucratic hurdles.

A Minor's Nightmare and a Systemic Snag

The ordeal began on November 11, 2014, when the minor petitioner was raped, leading to FIR No. 391/2014 at Police Station Sikari, Bharatpur, under Sections 323, 341, 376-D IPC, and later Sections 3/4 of the POCSO Act. The accused, Ayub, faces trial in Sessions Case No. 128/2015 before the Special POCSO Judge, Bharatpur, with the victim's statement recorded on July 11, 2016.

Mid-trial, the victim applied for interim compensation under the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011. But DLSA Bharatpur rejected it on March 15, 2017, solely because she lacked a certificate from the Station House Officer (SHO) or Magistrate. This prompted the criminal writ petition, challenging the order and seeking directions for relief.

Petitioner's Plea: Rehabilitation Over Red Tape

The petitioner argued that the Scheme, enacted under Section 357A CrPC following the 154th Law Commission Report, mandates compensation for victims needing rehabilitation, regardless of the accused's conviction status. She highlighted the RSLSA's February 27, 2015 circular outlining interim compensation procedures, which DLSA ignored. Citing her vulnerability as a minor POCSO victim, she urged the court to set aside the "technical" rejection and enforce state-funded reparation.

No detailed counter-arguments from respondents appear in the record; the focus was on the DLSA's flawed procedure.

From Malimath to Modern Victimology: Court's Compassionate Lens

Justice Dhand traced victim compensation's evolution, invoking the Malimath Committee's push for state-funded remedies beyond fines (paras 6.8.7-6.8.8). He referenced Hari Singh v Sukhbir Singh (1988) 4 SCC 551 for expanding compensation principles, and the Supreme Court's Mohd. Haroon v Union of India (WPC 155/2013), holding states duty-bound for rehabilitation post-fundamental rights violations.

Drawing from Bangladesh's Al Amin v State (1999) 19 BLD 307, the court noted punishment alone offers no solace—monetary aid is essential. Rajasthan's 2011 Scheme and RSLSA guidelines were binding, yet DLSA erred by not seeking the certificate itself.

Key Observations Straight from the Bench

"It is a quite shocking and surprising on the part of the DLSA to reject the application of the petitioner who is a minor rape victim. Instead of rejecting the petitioner's application seeking interim compensation, the DLSA could have ask the concerned SHO or Magistrate to send a certificate..."

"Modern approach of victimology acknowledges that a crime victim has a right to be adequately compensated, rehabilitated and repaired... victims of crime especially the victims of rape must have something like ‘reparation’ or ‘compensation’ that can reduce their continuing sufferings and trauma."

"The obligation of the State does not extinguish on payment of compensation, rehabilitation of victim is also of paramount importance. The mental trauma that the victim suffers due to commission of such heinous crime, rehabilitation becomes a must..."

Landmark Directives: No More 'Pillar to Post' for Victims

The court quashed the DLSA order, directing it to process interim (and final, if trial-concluded) compensation after obtaining the certificate proactively:

"In view of the discussions made herein-above, the impugned order dated 15.03.2017 passed by the DLSA, Bharatpur stands quashed and set aside..."

A broader mandate to RSLSA and all DLSAs: Adopt a "uniform policy" for rape victims' compensation, fetching details internally instead of burdening survivors.

"The details of the cases of such rape victims can be called upon by these authorities, at their appropriate level, instead of compelling the rape victim to run from pillar to post to get the certificate."

This ruling streamlines access under Section 357A CrPC, prioritizing sensitivity in POCSO cases. It signals stricter scrutiny of legal aid bodies, potentially easing relief for thousands of survivors statewide, with compliance expected within eight weeks.