Back
SLSA Cannot Impose 10-Year Fixed Deposit Fetter on Victim Compensation:
The has ruled that the cannot arbitrarily dictate how adult victims of human trafficking and sexual offences spend their compensation. A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray dismissed two appeals filed by the Member-Secretary of the SLSA, West Bengal, affirming a Single Judge's decision that struck down conditions requiring victims to lock away 75% of their awarded compensation in bank deposits for a decade.
When Compensation Comes With Strings Attached
The dispute stemmed from compensation awards made under . Achiya Bibi was awarded Rs. 3 lakh for being a victim of human trafficking, while Supiya Bibi received Rs. 4 lakh — Rs. 3 lakh for trafficking and Rs. 1 lakh for rape.
However, the Member-Secretary of the SLSA issued directions in requiring each victim to deposit 75% of the awarded amount in a nationalized bank under a Monthly Income Scheme for 10 years, with an auto-renewal option. The victims challenged these conditions before a learned Single Judge, who set them aside, prompting the SLSA to appeal.
The SLSA's Protective-Paternalism Defense
Before the Division Bench, the SLSA argued that the compensation awarded to a victim is not "property" within the meaning of , and that it held discretion to disburse compensation with conditions attached. The authority contended the 10-year deposit restriction was designed for the victim's own benefit — to safeguard the money from misuse and ensure proper rehabilitation.
The SLSA further invoked the Rules, 1995 and , claiming it was bound to implement the NLSA's Model Scheme, particularly , which contemplates blocking a percentage of compensation in fixed deposits.
Victims' Challenge: Selective Borrowing, Unlawful Restriction
The victims countered that the fetters imposed were the , which governs compensation in the State. They pointed out that the NLSA Model Scheme — which the SLSA selectively borrowed from — prescribes a higher compensation quantum and a minimum fixed deposit period of only three years, not ten. Adopting only the restrictive portion of the Model Scheme while reducing compensation amounts was, they argued, unlawful.
Court Rejects the 'Big Brother' Approach
The Division Bench found no infirmity in the Single Judge's reasoning. Critically, the Court observed that the contains no provision authorizing any fetters on how a victim utilizes compensation once disbursed. The SLSA could not rely on selective clauses of the NLSA Model Scheme, particularly since West Bengal has not yet adopted or amended its Scheme to incorporate the Model Scheme, despite the 's directive in .
The Bench also rejected the SLSA's institutional-authority argument, noting that even if the Chief Justice or senior puisne Judge of the High Court issued the direction in an administrative capacity under the LSA Act, such decisions remain amenable to .
Key Observations
The Court made several significant observations on victim autonomy:
"The West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme does not authorize anybody to put any fetter on the manner of utilization of the compensation amount disbursed in favour of a victim."
"The 'Big Brother' approach of the disbursing authority should be shunned and the victim should be free to spend the compensation money granted to her/him according to her/his decision."
"The inheres in the right to personal liberty and freedom and cannot be allowed to be curtailed arbitrarily by SLSA merely because it is in charge of the compensation fund."
Decision and Implications
The Division Bench dismissed both appeals (MAT 509 of 2020 and MAT 510 of 2020), vacated the interim stay that had been in operation, and disposed of all connected applications. No order was made as to costs.
The ruling reinforces that adult victims of sexual offences and human trafficking have full autonomy over their compensation amounts, and welfare authorities cannot adopt paternalistic restrictions absent explicit statutory backing. It also underscores that State schemes prevail over central model frameworks until formally adopted — a significant clarification for victim compensation administration across jurisdictions.
