News summary
The Supreme Court, while ordering that all Special and Sessions Courts pass orders for victim compensation in appropriate criminal cases to ensure timely disbursal through Legal Services Authorities, citing persistent delays caused by the absence of such directions and lack of awareness, has instructed High Courts and State Judicial Academies to circulate and train on compliance with Section 357A CrPC (now Section 396 BNSS) and POCSO provisions, in W.P.(C) No. 989/2025 (Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole v. Union of India & Ors.), before Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan, with notice issued and specific administrative transmission protocols mandated for implementation.
What Is the Main Legal Issue Addressed in This Case?
The principal question of law involves the duty of trial courts to pass clear compensation directions so that victim compensation mechanisms under statutory schemes can be implemented quickly by Legal Services Authorities without burdening victims with separate applications.
How Does the Law Work in Practice, and What Are the Key Principles?
The order identifies the lack of specific compensation directions at judgment or case disposal as a systemic hurdle, resulting in victims having to approach SLSAs/DLSAs independently; it mandates that Special/Sessions Courts issue compensation directions in eligible cases, and requires High Courts and Judicial Academies to ensure training and dissemination to embed compliance with Section 357A CrPC/Section 396 BNSS and the POCSO Act/Rules, enabling DLSA/TLSA to execute payments promptly.
News Summary
In a significant procedural directive, the Supreme Court ordered all Special and Sessions Courts to pass explicit directions for victim compensation in appropriate criminal cases to ensure timely disbursal through State, District, or Taluk Legal Services Authorities, noting that the absence of such orders has impeded payments and forced victims to seek relief independently. The bench of Justices B.V. Nagarathna and R. Mahadevan issued the order in a PIL filed by Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole, and directed circulation of the order by High Courts to Principal District Judges and inclusion in State Judicial Academy training to enhance awareness and compliance. The Court aligned the mandate with Section 357A CrPC, its successor Section 396 BNSS, and the POCSO Act and Rules to systematize compensation orders at the trial court level.
Legal provisions relied on
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 357A (Victim Compensation Scheme):
(1) Every State Government in co-ordination with the Central Government shall prepare a scheme for providing funds for the purpose of compensation to the victim or his dependents who have suffered loss or injury as a result of the crime and who require rehabilitation.
(2) Whenever a recommendation is made by the Court for compensation, the District Legal Service Authority or the State Legal Service Authority, as the case may be, shall decide the quantum of compensation to be awarded under the scheme referred to in sub-section (1).
(3) If the trial Court, at the conclusion of the trial, is satisfied, that the compensation awarded under section 357 is not adequate for such rehabilitation, or where the cases end in acquittal or discharge and the victim has to be rehabilitated, it may make recommendation for compensation.
(4) Where the offender is not traced or identified, but the victim is identified, and where no trial takes place, the victim or his dependents may make an application to the State or the District Legal Services Authority for award of compensation.
(5) On receipt of such recommendations or on the application under sub-section (4), the State or the District Legal Services Authority shall, after due enquiry award adequate compensation by completing the enquiry within two months.
(6) The State or the District Legal Services Authority, as the case may be, to alleviate the suffering of the victim, may order for immediate first-aid facility or medical benefits to be made available free of cost on the certificate of the police officer not below the rank of the officer in charge of the police station or a Magistrate of the area concerned, or any other interim relief as the appropriate authority deems fit.
Explanation: Establishes state-funded compensation schemes and empowers courts to trigger DLSA/SLSA action, including interim relief. Relevance: The SC directive operationalizes courts’ duty to issue compensation directions enabling DLSA/TLSA disbursal.
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, Section 396 (corresponding to CrPC 357A): Mandates state victim compensation schemes and continuity of court-linked recommendations and interim relief under the new code.
Explanation: BNSS preserves and clarifies the victim compensation architecture replacing CrPC.
Relevance: The SC references Section 396 to ensure compatibility with the new procedural framework.
- Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, and POCSO Rules: Provide for compensation/interim compensation to child victims, to be processed through Legal Services Authorities based on court orders. Explanation: POCSO establishes special procedures and compensation for child victims.
Relevance: The SC specifically directs POCSO/Special Courts to pass compensation orders per POCSO and linked schemes.
- Institutional Directions (Administrative Transmission): Registry to send order to Registrar Generals; High Courts to circulate to Principal District Judges; Judicial Academies to train Judges on compensation directions.
Explanation: Ensures uniform dissemination and capacity-building. Relevance: Embeds compliance and awareness across subordinate judiciary.
Judicial Interpretation and Critical Interpretation
The order lists the lack of specific compensation directions at judgment or case disposal as a systemic barrier, leading victims to have to approach SLSAs/DLSAs on their own; it directs that Special/Sessions Courts make compensation directions in eligible cases and that High Courts and Judicial Academies ensure training and dissemination to embed compliance with Section 357A CrPC/Section 396 BNSS and POCSO Act/Rules so that DLSA/TLSA may effect payment without delay. The present order in Jyoti Praveen Khandpasole v. Union of India & Ors. crystallizes a practice requirement: trial courts must pass compensation directions to operationalize state schemes via Legal Services Authorities, addressing the implementation vacuum caused by absent judicial triggers. Facts: A PIL highlighted delays and burdens on victims despite statutory schemes; Holding: Courts must pass compensation directions and the order must be disseminated and embedded in judicial training; Significance: It standardizes trial-level practice to ensure timely disbursal. This fits with Section 357A/Section 396’s architecture that expects court recommendations to catalyze DLSA/SLSA action, and with POCSO’s mandate for child victims. The directive’s administrative instructions to High Courts and Judicial Academies aim at harmonizing practice across the country, reducing reliance on ad hoc applications, and fostering proactive victim-centric adjudication.
The directive narrows the law-practice gap by standardizing court behavior, yet sustained monitoring and possible model guidelines on assessment, timelines, and minimum quantum would further enhance uniformity and predictability.
Conclusion
Trial courts must now routinely consider and direct victim compensation in eligible cases, enabling DLSA/TLSA to disburse effectively and reducing post-judgment burdens on survivors. High Courts and Judicial Academies should ensure rapid training updates and monitoring for compliance, with potential issuance of standard operating protocols to harmonize the number of cases and their timelines.
