The petition contends that the current policies of state governments for victims of hate crimes and mob lynching provide only meagre compensation, which are not just and fair.
—
ON Friday, a division Bench of the Supreme Court comprising Justices K.M. Joseph and B.V. Nagarathna issued notice to the governments of all states and Union territories (UTs) on a public interest litigation seeking uniform ex gratia compensation for victims of hate crimes and mob lynching.
The Bench was hearing a petition filed by an organisation called ‘Indian Muslims for Progress and Reform’ (IMPAR), which claims to be a leading organisation of progressive and modern Muslim intellectuals and scholars in India.
IMPAR has sought the following two-fold relief:
- Direction to the governments of states and UTs to enact and implement a uniform policy for grant of ex gratia compensation to victims of hate crimes and mob lynching
- Direction to the governments of states and UTs to suitably modify existing victims’ compensation schemes framed pursuant to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Tehseen Poonawalla versus Union of India (2018) in order to provide just, fair and reasonable monetary compensation to the victims of hate crimes and mob lynching.
Regarding the ex gratia compensation paid from the Chief Minister’s Relief Funds in all states, IMPAR claims in its petition that the approach of state governments had been discriminatory, since in most cases, its response depends on extraneous factors like media coverage, political imperatives and the victim’s religious identity.
It buttresses its claim by citing two examples from Rajasthan.
The family of Kanhaiya Lal, a tailor from Udaipur who was murdered in a hate crime in June last year, was handed over a cheque of ₹50 lakh as compensation by the Chief Minister of Rajasthan. The latter also ordered that the two sons of the deceased be provided government jobs.
On the other hand, in the case of two persons from the state hailing from a minority religious community, namely Nasir and Junaid alias Juna who were kidnapped by members of a cow vigilante group and later found burnt alive in Haryana in February this year, their families were each given only ₹5 lakh as compensation.
In Karnataka, the Chief Minister, while visiting the residence of Bharatiya Janata Party worker Praveen Nettaru, who was killed in an alleged hate crime, handed over a cheque of ₹25 lakh as compensation to his family, but no compensation was granted by the state government to the family members of Masood and Fazil, who were brutally killed in July last year in allegedly similar hate crimes.
“The discriminatory approach adopted by State governments referred to in this public interest litigation is an extreme example of prejudices and indifferent attitude adopted by the governments against a class of citizens on the ground of their religion alone. It is submitted that such an action by the governments is not only the violation of the equality before law (Article 14) but also a breach of Article 15 [of the Constitution] which mandates non-discrimination against any citizen on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex, place of birth or any of them,” the petition states.
Regarding the victim compensation scheme provided under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the petition claims that only a few states have framed victim compensation schemes in consonance with the Section, as directed by the Supreme Court in Tehseen Poonawalla.
In Tehseen Poonawalla, the court had directed, “State governments shall prepare a lynching or mob violence victim compensation scheme in the light of the provisions of Section 357A of CrPC within one month from the date of this judgment. In the said scheme for computation of compensation, State governments shall give due regard to the nature of bodily injury, psychological injury and loss of earnings including loss of opportunities of employment and education and expenses incurred on account of legal and medical expenses. The said compensation scheme must also have a provision for interim relief to be paid to the victim(s) or to the next of kin of the deceased within a period of thirty days of the incident of mob violence or lynching.”
IMPAR argues that the amount being paid as compensation is meagre. The petition avers that:
- As per the Rajasthan Victim Compensation Scheme, 2011 as amended up to date, the maximum amount of compensation for the loss of life of an earning member of a household is ₹5 lakh.
- As per the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme, 2014, families of victims of mob lynching would be granted compensation to the tune of ₹3 lakh.
- The Prevention of Mob Violence and Mob Lynching Bill, 2021 in Jharkhand, in which a provision for compensation to the victims of mob lynching was made, has not received assent from the governor.
- As per the Haryana Victim Compensation Schemes, 2020, the minimum amount of compensation to be paid to the families of victims upon their death is ₹2 lakh, though no specific provision has been made for the grant of compensation to victims of hate crime or mob lynching.
- As per the Tripura Lynching/ Mob Violence Victim Compensation Scheme, 2018, on account of death, a hate crime victim’s family is entitled to receive minimum compensation to the tune of ₹4 lakh.
The petitioner contends that the current policies of state governments for victims of hate crimes and mob lynching provide only meagre compensation, which by no stretch of the imagination could be said to be just and fair.
The petition was argued by advocate Javed Sheik, and was filed through advocate-on-record Rizwan Ahmed.
