Latest news with #DVCS
Time of India
6 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Delhi High Court Rules Victim Compensation Scheme Not Applicable Retrospectively; 1984 Riot Claim Rejected
New Delhi: In a significant ruling, Delhi High Court has said the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme (DVCS) can't be applied retrospectively, rejecting a plea for compensation by a victim of the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. Clarifying the legal position, a bench of Justices Subramonium Prasad and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar also noted that DVCS compensation can be paid only in cases where victims have not already received money under other govt compensation schemes. The court was hearing a plea by a family that lost its breadwinner in the 1984 anti-Sikh riots following Prime Minister Indira Gandhi's assassination. Avtar Singh, a Sikh, was killed by a rampaging mob in the Raj Nagar area of Palam. The men accused were later acquitted in 1986. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi | Gold Rates Today in Delhi | Silver Rates Today in Delhi The HC traced the DVCS's origin to Section 357A of the erstwhile CrPC, which dealt with victim compensation. It opined that since the scheme owes its existence to Section 357A, it should apply prospectively. It added that "retrospective application of either the provisions of Section 357A of the CrPC or the DVCS would open the floodgates for all and sundry to rake up old and stale claims seeking compensation, be it for an incident occurring just before the introduction of the scheme or three decades prior, like in the present case." by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What does it take to be an air traffic controller in Singapore? CNA Read More Undo While rejecting the compensation claim, HC noted that the complainant, Baljeet Kaur, disclosed in an affidavit that her family had already received a total of Rs 11,90,000 from the govt for the death of her father, Avtar Singh, in the 1984 Sikh riots. "Clause 4 (of DVCS) restricts eligibility for compensation to victims or their dependents who have not been compensated for the loss or injury under any other scheme of the Central Govt or State Govt. This clarifies that the DVCS was formed as an umbrella scheme to provide relief to those victims who have been deprived of compensation through any other scheme or Act," HC noted, after amicus curiae appointed in the matter, Senior Advocate Sumeet Verma, argued that Singh's family is entitled to additional compensation under DVCS. The bench noted that the "incident in question took place in the year 1984, and since then, multiple schemes have been introduced by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt of India, and later adopted and implemented by state govts, including the Delhi govt. A review of these schemes shows that the total monetary benefit, without indexation, would surpass the upper limit of compensation prescribed under the DVCS. The govt has taken additional initiatives to reimburse the victims for property damage and loss, and skill development as well. " While this case was one of five reopened in 2017 due to a botched investigation into the 1984 riots, the verdict narrowed down on the issue of compensation payable, after it emerged that accused Mahender Singh Manan, also known as Mahender Sharabi, and Ram Kumar, are now dead. However, HC made it clear that its ruling won't exclude any victims affected by the riots who have not received compensation under any schemes from lodging their claims under other existing schemes. The bench directed that such claims be verified by authorities within a period of sixteen weeks of receipt and, if approved, payments be made within a period of eight weeks. Stay updated with the latest local news from your city on Times of India (TOI). Check upcoming bank holidays , public holidays , and current gold rates and silver prices in your area.
Hindustan Times
14-06-2025
- Hindustan Times
State vicariously responsible for Custodial death, says Delhi HC
The Delhi High Court has held the State vicariously liable for unnatural deaths in judicial custody, asserting that it has a constitutional obligation to ensure the safety and dignity of incarcerated individuals. The verdict came on Thursday from justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar in a case involving the custodial death of a Tihar Jail inmate, Javed, just two days before he was to be released in 2013. The court not only awarded compensation to Javed's legal heirs but also issued sharp observations on the failure of prison authorities to prevent gang violence in prisons. 'The State, owing a duty to ensure the security of the general public, including incarcerated persons, is responsible to compensate in cases of unnatural deaths in custody,' the court ruled. The judgment squarely placed the blame on systemic lapses and emphasised that the State's responsibility doesn't end at incarceration—it includes active efforts to prevent violence and the proliferation of gangs inside jails. Javed, who was serving a seven-year sentence for robbery, was due to be released on May 5, 2013. But two days before his release, his mother, Shakila, was informed that he had succumbed to injuries following a violent clash between rival gangs inside the prison. In her plea, Shakila had demanded a judicial inquiry, alleging that jail staff were responsible for her son's death. She also sought compensation, stating she was financially dependent on him. In December 2014, she was granted ₹1 lakh as interim relief based on recommendations by the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). The case was closed in 2017, following Shakila's death the previous year. But in 2019, her four children and five grandchildren successfully moved to revive the case. The Delhi government opposed the plea, contending that Javed had died in an intra-gang fight and that the petitioners were not eligible for compensation under the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme (DVCS), 2018, as they were not 'dependents' after Shakila's death. Rejecting these claims, the court said Shakila had been wrongfully denied rightful compensation during her lifetime. 'She was forced to come to this court… but before the petition could be decided, she passed away,' the court observed. Highlighting NHRC's findings, the judge said there were evident lapses by jail personnel. He ordered the Delhi government to immediately pay ₹2 lakh to Javed's legal heirs and asked the Delhi State Legal Services Authority (DLSA) to conduct a fact-finding exercise to determine additional compensation. In a noteworthy interpretation of DVCS, the court ruled that siblings and grandchildren of deceased victims are also entitled to claim compensation—regardless of marital status. 'Since this court has already held that a sibling is also entitled, there can be no distinction made between a married or unmarried sibling either. A similar logic would be applicable in the case of the children of the sibling(s),' the order said. Though the court declined to order a new judicial inquiry—citing prior acquittals in the case—it rebuked prison authorities for failing to maintain order. 'The fact that rival gangs had access to weapons or tools to cause injuries, resulting in death, reflects poorly on the discharge of duties by the jail administration,' the court said. This ruling comes amid heightened scrutiny of custodial violence in the Capital. Just days earlier, a preliminary report on the death of 24-year-old Aman Poddar inside the Saket court lock-up had flagged grave lapses, including the failure to separate rival inmates and delays in police response. Echoing that case, the court remarked: 'The State cannot escape liability by attributing the death to a gang altercation. Preventing such violence is a core part of the State's responsibility.'
