Juris Centre

Victim Compensation

1. Introduction and Origination of Victim Compensation

The word “victim” finds its etymological roots in the Latin term victima, which originally referred to a sacrificial animal offered to deities in religious rituals. Over time, its meaning evolved to denote a person who suffers harm, particularly due to crime, injustice, or misfortune. This linguistic transition—carrying connotations of suffering and involuntary sacrifice—aptly reflects the victim’s role within legal systems as individuals bearing the brunt of wrongdoing.

In the context of Indian law, colonial-era legislation such as the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860 and the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), 1898 was primarily offender-centric. Legal discourse revolved around the “accused,” “culprit,” or “wrongdoer,” while the affected individuals were typically referred to as “complainants” or “informants,” with no formal legal identity as “victims.” It was only post the 1980s, coinciding with the rise of victimology as a discipline and increasing judicial attention to victims’ rights, that the term “victim” gained legal prominence in India. The Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2008[1] marked a watershed moment, introducing the definition of “victim” under Section 2(wa) of the CrPC and expanding their participatory rights in criminal proceedings.

Victim compensation emerged historically as a principle of restorative justice, aimed at acknowledging the harm suffered and ensuring financial and rehabilitative relief. Its origins can be traced to ancient legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi[2] and Roman law[3], which emphasized restitution by the offender to restore the victim’s loss. Indian traditions, too, reflected similar values—texts like the Manusmriti[4] prescribed that assailants must compensate for injuries, reinforcing the moral obligation to undo harm.

In the modern legal framework, the concept of state-funded victim compensation developed globally in the mid-20th century, championed by reformers like Margery Fry[5], who, in the 1950s, advocated for institutional support to victims. This movement gained momentum in the 1960s with the emergence of victimology, and by the 1970s, several jurisdictions—including Canada and parts of the United States—had implemented victim compensation laws, often linking them to victims’ cooperation in criminal prosecutions. A defining international moment was the United Nations Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power (1985)[6], which was unanimously adopted by the General Assembly and later ratified by India. The Declaration underscored the global shift toward victim-centric justice and provided a framework for national reforms.

In India, the shift from offender-funded compensation under the CrPC to state-mandated compensation was gradual but significant. Initially, under Section 357 of the CrPC, compensation was contingent on fines imposed by the courts. The 2008 amendment[7] inserted Section 357A, directing states to establish Victim Compensation Schemes (VCS) independent of offender conviction or sentencing. This legislative progress was reinforced through judicial interpretations linking victim compensation to Article 21 of the Constitution—enshrining the right to life and personal liberty.

Most recently, the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which came into effect on July 1, 2024, codifies these developments under Section 396, mandating state-funded compensation schemes and institutionalizing victim rights within India’s reformed criminal justice architecture. The BNSS represents a progressive move towards a victim-sensitive legal ecosystem, aiming to deliver not just justice in form, but also in substance.

2. Definition of Victim Compensation

Victim compensation refers to monetary or supportive assistance provided to individuals who suffer physical, emotional, or financial harm due to criminal acts. Unlike restitution, which is offender-funded, compensation under schemes like the VCS is typically state-sponsored, drawn from public funds or designated pools like the Central Victim Compensation Fund[8]. In India, the BNSS Section 2(1)(x), defines victim as “a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused person has been charged and includes his or her guardian or legal heir.”

Compensation serves not as a full remedy for victims’ suffering but as a palliative measure to alleviate immediate financial burdens and facilitate rehabilitation.

3. Criteria for Victim Compensation

Eligibility for victim compensation in India hinges on several criteria, reflecting both statutory mandates and judicial interpretations:

  • Nature of Crime: Compensation prioritizes victims of violent crimes under the BNS, such as rape (Section 64), acid attacks (Section 326 of former IPC, now BNS Section 124), human trafficking (Section 143), murder (Section 103), and organized crime (Section 111). Special laws like the POCSO Act, 2012, and SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, continue to apply.
  • Dependents: For fatal crimes, dependents (spouses, children, parents) qualify, as per BNSS Section 396.
  • Offender Status: BNSS Section 396 extends compensation irrespective of offender identification or conviction, a carryover from CrPC Section 357A, ensuring systemic failures don’t deny relief.
  • Economic Hardship: Many states VCS require proof of “substantial” loss to income or excessive medical expenses, though terms like “substantial” remain subjective (e.g., Odisha VCS, 2017[9]).
  • Cooperation: Some VCS (e.g., Karnataka) mandate cooperation with authorities, with non-compliance risking denial, though BNSS Section 173(4)(i) softens this by ensuring victim statements are recorded sensitively (e.g., via audio-video for rape cases).
  • Exclusions: Victims receiving compensation from other sources (e.g., insurance) or exceeding income thresholds (e.g., Madhya Pradesh caps full awards at ₹5 lakh annual income) may be ineligible or receive reduced amounts.

These criteria, while comprehensive, reveal gaps in uniformity and clarity, particularly around “rehabilitation,” a term left undefined in most schemes, leaving discretion to authorities like the District Legal Services Authority (DLSA)[10] or State Legal Services Authority (SLSA).

BNSS retains and strengthens the victim’s position by institutionalizing compensation under Chapter XIII.

4. Legal Remedies Available

India’s victim compensation framework spans statutory provisions, judicial precedents, and specialized legislation:

Section 395 & 396 BNSS: S. 395 give courts’ power to direct offenders to pay compensation from fines, whereas S. 396 mandates each State Government to prepare a scheme for victim compensation, including provision for interim compensation regardless of conviction.

Earlier CrPC Section 357A: Introduced in 2009, this mandates states to establish VCS, funded by state-managed victim compensation funds, covering scenarios beyond offender liability, including interim relief.

Constitutional Remedies: The Supreme Court, under Article 32, and High Courts, under Article 226, have awarded compensation for violations of fundamental rights, notably Article 21, as seen in Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar[11], where ₹35,000 was granted for unlawful detention vide one habeas corpus petition, further influencing case like Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa[12] wherein Supreme Court of India reinforced the principle of public law compensation for custodial deaths under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Specialized Laws:

  • POCSO Act, 2012[13]: Section 33(8) – Special Courts can direct the State Government to pay compensation for the victim’s rehabilitation, including medical treatment, counseling, and loss of education.
  • SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989[14]: Section 15A(6)(b) – Victims, their dependents, or witnesses are entitled to relief and rehabilitation.
  • Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005[15]: Section 20, courts can order the abuser to cover medical expenses, lost earnings, maintenance, and property damage caused by domestic violence. Additionally, Section 22 allows courts to award compensation for mental torture, emotional distress, and physical harm.
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988[16]: Sections 140 and 163A provide fixed, no-fault compensation—₹50,000/₹25,000 for death/disability and structured amounts for accident victims—while Section 166 allows fault-based claims via the MACT. Section 161 offers ₹2,00,000 for hit-and-run deaths and ₹50,000 for grievous injuries.
  • Other Statutes: Laws like the Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster Act[17], 1985, Consumer Protection Act, 2019[18], and Probation of Offenders Act, 1958[19], also facilitate victim relief.

5. Case Laws and Landmark Judgments

Judicial activism has significantly shaped victim compensation in India:

  • Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar[20]: A habeas corpus petition led to ₹35,000 compensation for 14 years of illegal detention, establishing the Supreme Court’s power under Article 32 to award monetary relief for Article 21 violations.
  • Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India[21]: Mandated compensation for rape victims, highlighting systemic support needs.
  • Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra[22]: Emphasized courts’ duty to consider compensation in every criminal case, urging a victim-centric approach.
  • Laxmi v. Union of India[23]: Directed ₹3 lakh minimum compensation for acid attack survivors, prompting states to align VCS with this benchmark.
  • Tekan v. State of Chhattisgarh[24]: Critiqued non-uniform compensation (₹20,000 to ₹10 lakh for rape), ordering lifetime monthly payments of ₹8,000, and calling for a uniform scheme.
  • M.C. Mehta v. Union of India[25]: Evolved absolute liability for hazardous industries, expanding compensation scope under Article 32 for mass disasters like the Delhi Oleum Gas Leak.

These rulings underscore the judiciary’s role in bridging legislative gaps, though they also highlight persistent disparities.

6. Victim Compensation Schemes Across India

The CrPC Section 357A mandated states to formulate VCS, resulting in diverse schemes across India’s 29 states and 7 union territories, further following the enforcement of BNSS, states are expected to review and harmonize their Victim Compensation Schemes with Section 396 provisions. This includes expanding interim relief, setting clear income criteria, and ensuring time-bound disbursal.

Implementation Timeline

Early Adopters (2011): Arunachal Pradesh notified the Arunachal Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme in 2011, Bihar implemented the Bihar Victim Compensation Scheme on July 28, 2011, Chhattisgarh introduced the Victim Compensation Scheme in 2011, Karnataka established the Karnataka Victim Compensation Scheme in 2011, whereas Delhi formulated the Delhi Victim Compensation Scheme in 2011. ​

Later Adopters: Goa notified the Goa Victim Compensation Scheme on December 20, 2012, Tamil Nadu introduced the Tamil Nadu Victim Compensation Scheme in 2013,Uttar Pradesh implemented the Uttar Pradesh Victim Compensation Scheme on April 9, 2014, Madhya Pradesh established the Madhya Pradesh Crime Victim Compensation Scheme in 2015, further Assam & Gujarat also formulated their schemes in 2013 and Delhi enhanced victim Compensation Scheme of 2018.

Delhi: In January 2024, the Delhi government amended the Delhi Victims Compensation Scheme, 2018, to include victims of mob violence and lynching. The definition of ‘victim’ now encompasses guardians or legal heirs of individuals affected by such incidents. Interim relief is to be provided within 30 days of the offense, with specific provisions for compensation amounts.

Meghalaya: In 2024, Meghalaya introduced the Meghalaya Victim Compensation Scheme to offer financial aid to victims of various crimes, including physical and sexual assaults, acid attacks, and more. The scheme provides compensation based on the severity of the injury and the victim’s age, with amounts ranging from ₹1,00,000 to ₹10,00,000.

Objectives

Most schemes aim to provide funds for victims suffering loss or injury requiring rehabilitation. Odisha stands out, offering holistic support—financial aid, shelter, counseling, medical care, education, and vocational training (Odisha VCS, 2017).

The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS), has replaced the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, while preserving and reinforcing the framework for victim compensation under Section 396. Unlike its predecessor Section 357A of the CrPC, which often suffered from interpretative ambiguity and uneven implementation, Section 396 provides a clearer mandate to State Governments to institutionalize compensation schemes and ensure interim relief. This reflects a legislative intent to enshrine victim dignity and prompt rehabilitation at the heart of criminal justice procedures, consistent with Article 21 jurisprudence.

Implementing Authorities

The District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) and State Legal Services Authorities (SLSAs), established under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, are responsible for implementing victim compensation schemes across India. The Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, under Section 396, mandates these bodies to execute state-run compensation schemes, providing both interim and final financial relief to victims.

Responsibilities: DLSAs, supervised by district judges, receive applications, verify documents (e.g., FIRs, medical reports), and disburse funds. SLSAs manage state-level coordination, ensuring funds from the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) reach districts. For example, Odisha’s VCS (notified in 2017) requires DLSAs to arrange psychological counseling through empaneled therapists and coordinate free legal aid via local advocates.

BNSS Changes: Since July 1, 2024, BNSS Section 396 has directed states to integrate DLSAs and SLSAs with digital platforms like e-Courts and the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS). This allows real-time case tracking, such as uploading FIRs and compensation orders online.
However, challenges remain: urban DLSAs, like Delhi’s, processed over 1,200 claims in 2024 but struggle with delays due to high volumes, while rural DLSAs in states like Bihar lack staff and internet access, slowing disbursals. Training programs and faster digital rollout are needed to meet BNSS requirements.

Monitoring Mechanisms

Monitoring of victim compensation schemes is inconsistent across India, with no nationwide system in place to track performance or ensure timely payments.

State Models:

  • Tamil Nadu designates its Home, Prohibition, and Excise Department to oversee VCS, reviewing quarterly reports from SLSAs on disbursed amounts and pending cases.
  • Bihar assigns its Law Department to monitor compliance, ensuring DLSAs follow state guidelines, such as disbursing ₹3 lakh for rape cases.
  • Madhya Pradesh has State and District Level Monitoring Committees under its Home Department, meeting quarterly (state) and monthly (district) to assess claims—for instance, in 2023, they cleared 450 pending cases in Bhopal alone.

BNSS Requirement: Section 396, requires states to coordinate with the Central Government for funding and implementation but does not establish a uniform monitoring body.

Without a centralized system, delays persist—Karnataka reported 1,521 pending cases in 2019-20, a backlog likely reduced but still significant. A proposed solution is a National Legal Services Authority (NALSA)-led oversight mechanism, using CCTNS to track every claim from application to payment, ensuring compliance with BNSS timelines like the 60-day charge-framing limit under Section 263(g).

Eligibility and Procedure

Victims must meet specific criteria and follow a defined process to receive compensation under state VCS, now governed by BNSS.

Eligibility Criteria:

  • Victims must show loss, such as medical bills (e.g., ₹50,000 for acid attack treatment) or lost wages (e.g., ₹20,000 monthly income).
  • They cannot claim if already compensated elsewhere, like through insurance or the Motor Vehicles Act.
  • Cooperation with police is required—Karnataka’s VCS (2011) denies relief if victims fail to file an FIR within 48 hours of the crime.

Application Process: Victims or their dependents submit a form to the DLSA or SLSA with an FIR, medical certificate, and Aadhaar card. Arunachal Pradesh processes claim in 30 days, while most states, like Uttar Pradesh, take 60 days after verification by a DLSA panel.

BNSS Provisions: Since July 1, 2024, Section 396 allows interim relief before conviction for serious crimes like rape (BNS Section 64), disbursing funds within weeks. Section 173(4)(i) mandates recording women’s statements via audio-video to ease cooperation.
Despite this, many victims in rural areas miss out—only 38 applied in Arunachal Pradesh by 2017 due to poor awareness.

Compensation Quantum

The amount of compensation differs sharply across states, despite efforts to standardize payments.

Specific Amounts:

  • Rape: Chhattisgarh pays ₹25,000, while Goa and Delhi offer ₹10 lakh (Delhi VCS, 2024).
  • Acid Attacks: Arunachal Pradesh gives ₹1 lakh, Delhi ₹7 lakh (raised in 2022).
  • Minors (Sexual Assault): Chhattisgarh provides ₹50,000, Madhya Pradesh ₹2 lakh (Madhya Pradesh VCS, 2015).

Central Guideline: The CVCF, set up in 2015, recommends ₹3 lakh minimum for rape and acid attacks, per the Supreme Court’s ruling in Laxmi v. Union of India[26]. Delhi’s 2024 VCS update added ₹50,000 for counseling sessions.

BNSS Framework: Section 396, aims for fair relief, but states retain discretion, leading to inequality. The Supreme Court in Tekan v. State[27] of Chhattisgarh criticized this, ordering ₹8,000 monthly lifetime payments for a rape victim

A national standard—say, ₹5 lakh for rape with annual adjustments for inflation—is overdue to ensure victims in poorer states aren’t shortchanged.

Central Initiatives and Utilization Trends

The Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF), launched in 2015 with an initial ₹200 crore allocation, supports states in providing consistent relief.

2022 Data: NALSA’s annual report for 2022 shows ₹404.73 million disbursed nationwide: ₹202.62 million for sexual offense victims (e.g., rape), ₹66.23 million for acid attack survivors, and ₹47.88 million for child victims under the POCSO Act.

2024 Developments: Delhi’s VCS, amended January 2024, processed 1,267 claims by December, disbursing ₹152.04 million for mob violence (BNS Section 109) and sexual crimes, with interim payments within 30 days (Delhi government press release, 2024). The Ministry of Home Affairs reported a 15% increase in CVCF applications after BNSS took effect on July 1, 2024, based on SLSA submissions, though exact 2024-25 figures await publication.

The Department of Women & Child Development in Kerala has established a corpus fund of ₹300 lakh to provide interim relief to victims of sex crimes, domestic violence, acid attacks, and other heinous gender-based violence[28].

In 2024, the Delhi High Court approved the ‘Avlamban Fund Scheme, 2024,’ establishing a permanent corpus fund of ₹10 crore aimed at rehabilitating acid attack survivors[29].

BNSS Impact: Section 396 mandates interim relief (e.g., ₹1 lakh for rape within 15 days) and links VCS to digital platforms like CCTNS. The Supreme Court’s 2023 order requires all payments within 60 days of application.

Challenges remain: the Nirbhaya Fund, with ₹3,600 crore allocated since 2013, is 90% unspent (Ministry audit, 2023), and rural victims in states like Goa (1 claim in 2016-17) still lack awareness.  

7. Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: A Parallel Compensation System

The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA) establishes a distinct framework for compensating accident victims, often overlapping with criminal compensation in cases involving drunk driving or negligent homicide. Under Section 140, the Act provides for no-fault liability, granting ₹50,000 for death and ₹25,000 for injury. Section 163A introduces structured compensation, considering factors such as the victim’s age and income. Additionally, Section 166 allows for fault-based claims to be pursued through tribunals. In cases of hit-and-run accidents, Section 161 ensures compensation of ₹2 lakh for deaths and ₹12,500 for injuries, with these amounts revised under the 2019 amendment.

8. Criticism and Loopholes in Victim Compensation Laws

Despite legislative intent, India’s victim compensation system faces significant challenges:

Ignorance and Awareness: A vast population remains unaware of VCS, exacerbated by untrained police and lack of workshops, furthermore timely compensation often occurs only with media attention.

Non-Uniformity: Compensation disparities (e.g., ₹20,000 vs. ₹10 lakh for rape) violate equality under Article 14, as victims in different states receive unequal justice

Under-Reporting: Patriarchal norms, social stigma, and police apathy deter reporting, especially for sexual offenses. The National Family Health Survey (NFHS-4) estimates 99% of sexual violence goes unreported.

Hostile Victims: Schemes like Karnataka’s deny compensation to victims turning hostile, ignoring coercion or trauma.

Administrative Bottlenecks

DLSA/SLSA Conflicts: Mandated to aid both victims and accused, risking bias.

Pendency: High backlog (e.g., Karnataka: 1,521 pending cases, 2019-20) delays relief.

Fund Underutilization: The Nirbhaya Fund (₹3,600 crore) remains 90% unused due to procedural hurdles.

Judicial Reluctance

Courts sparingly use Section 357, limiting offender-funded relief (Hari Krishan v. Sukhbir Singh[30]).

Limited Scope: Focus on financial aid neglects psychological and vocational rehabilitation.

9. International Perspective on Victim Compensation

Victim compensation schemes vary globally, reflecting diverse legal traditions, economic capacities, and societal priorities. Comparing with other countries like United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, and South Africa would help knowing their system and highlight their approaches, funding mechanisms, and lessons for India.

United Kingdom: Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA): The UK’s CICA[31], established in 1964 and reformed under the Criminal Injuries Compensation Act 1995, is one of the oldest state-funded schemes. It compensates victims of violent crimes (e.g., assault, rape, murder) regardless of offender conviction, with awards ranging from £1,000 to £500,000 based on a tariff system. Eligibility requires reporting to police and excludes victims with unspent criminal convictions which is a stricter criterion than India’s. Funded by the Ministry of Justice, the scheme disbursed £133 million in 2022-23[32]. Its strength lies in standardized awards and a centralized authority, however, the UK’s exclusion of minor injuries and psychological harm beyond PTSD limits its scope, a gap India addresses through broader definitions under Section 2(wa).

Australia: State-Based Victims Support Schemes: Australia’s decentralized approach mirrors India’s, with each state and territory operating its own scheme under statutes like Victoria’s Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996[33]. Compensation covers medical expenses, lost income, and “pain and suffering,” capped at AUD 75,000 in Victoria (VOCAT, 2023). Queensland’s scheme uniquely offers counseling and vocational support, aligning with Odisha’s holistic model but surpassing most Indian states’ financial-only focus. However, delays in processing (up to 12 months) and income thresholds resemble India’s administrative bottlenecks, suggesting a need for streamlined procedures.

Canada: Provincial Compensation Programs: Canada’s victim compensation, rooted in the 1960s victimology movement, operates provincially, with programs like Ontario’s Victim Quick Response Program (VQRP) providing immediate aid (up to CAD 5,000) for funeral costs or counseling within days of a crime (Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, 2023)[34]. Funding is sourced from federal grants and provincial budgets, with British Columbia adding a victim surcharge levy on offenders—a mechanism India could consider to strengthen its Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF). Canada’s strong focus on mental health support, offering free therapy for PTSD, surpasses India’s primarily financial approach under the BNSS. However, Canadian eligibility often excludes victims of unreported crimes, a limitation India addresses through BNSS Section 396, which ensures compensation even when offenders are untraced or unconvicted.

South Africa: Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP): South Africa’s VEP[35], launched post-apartheid in 1996, integrates compensation with restorative justice, reflecting its socio-economic context. Unlike India’s statutory framework, it relies heavily on NGOs and community partnerships, with limited state funding (e.g., ZAR 50 million annually) (Department of Social Development, 2022). Compensation is modest (e.g., ZAR 15,000 for rape), but the program prioritizes rehabilitation—shelter, skills training, and trauma counseling—over monetary awards. This contrasts with India’s inconsistent rehabilitation efforts, where “rehabilitation” remains undefined in most VCS.

Comparative Insights: Internationally, funding diversity (offender levies in Canada, restitution in Australia) contrasts with India’s state-centric CVCF, suggesting hybrid models could reduce fiscal strain. The UK and Canada’s centralized and rapid-response systems highlight India’s need for a National Victim Compensation Authority to address disparities and delays (e.g., Karnataka’s 1,910 pending cases). Holistic support in Australia and South Africa underscores India’s gap in psychological and vocational aid, while the UK’s tariff system offers a blueprint for uniform compensation quanta. However, India’s inclusion of untraced offender cases surpasses stricter eligibility in the UK and Canada, reflecting a progressive stance adaptable globally.

Lessons for India: Adopting Canada’s victim surcharge or Australia’s restitution recovery could diversify funding, while South Africa’s NGO model might enhance outreach in rural India. A tariff-based system, inspired by the UK, could standardize awards, integrating these elements requires balancing India’s federal structure with global best practices, ensuring victim justice aligns with Article 21’s dignity promise.

9. New Developments and Recent Amendments

Supreme Court’s Time-Bound Mandate: In 2023, the Supreme Court mandated that victim compensation disbursals be completed within 60 days of application, a response to a public interest litigation on acid attack survivors. This directive, enforceable since its issuance, pushed states like Uttar Pradesh to reduce pendency by 20% by December 2024, clearing over 300 cases through expedited DLSA reviews (Press Trust of India, December 2024). It complements the BNSS’s emphasis on swift relief, setting a legal benchmark for timeliness nationwide.

Online Application Pioneers: Kerala introduced an online VCS application system in 2023, processing 850 claims in 2024 and disbursing ₹95 million within an average of 45 days via its e-Courts-linked portal (Kerala SLSA Report, 2024). This digital leap, distinct from other states’ efforts, showcases a model for reducing delays, though rural connectivity issues remain a hurdle, prompting Kerala to plan mobile app extensions by mid-2025.

CVCF Funding Boost: In August 2024, the Ministry of Home Affairs injected an additional ₹150 crore into the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) to support underfunded states like Chhattisgarh and Arunachal Pradesh, where compensation remains low (MHA Notification, August 2024). However, only 60% of this fund was utilized by December 2024, with states citing slow inter-departmental approvals as the bottleneck, highlighting a need for streamlined fund release mechanisms.

Meghalaya’s Tiered Compensation Model: Meghalaya’s VCS, notified in March 2024, introduced a tiered structure—₹1 lakh for minor injuries up to ₹10 lakh for severe cases like rape or permanent disability—based on victim age and injury severity (Meghalaya SLSA, 2024). This pioneering approach, unique among states, aims to tailor relief to individual impact, setting a potential precedent for national standardization efforts.

NALSA’s CCTNS Integration Pilot: In October 2024, the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) launched a pilot integrating VCS with the Crime and Criminal Tracking Network & Systems (CCTNS) across five states: Delhi, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra, and Rajasthan. By December 2024, it reduced processing times by 25%, disbursing ₹75 million across 620 cases with real-time tracking (NALSA Update, 2024). This initiative marks a step toward a unified, tech-driven compensation system.

10. Way Forward: Innovations and Solutions

To address these gaps, innovative and victim-centric reforms can be proposed and help:

Blockchain-Based Disbursement: Adopting blockchain technology could ensure transparent, tamper-proof fund transfers under BNSS Section 396. Inspired by Estonia’s e-governance[36], which processes 99% of services online, blockchain could log a ₹3 lakh rape compensation payment instantly, reducing corruption and cutting delays from weeks to hours.

Crime Insurance for Automatic Relief: A state-backed crime insurance scheme could cover victims of crimes like rape (BNS Section 64) or acid attacks (BNS Section 124). This model it would pay out higher compensation for severe cases, funded by a 0.1% luxury goods cess and offender fines, ensuring predictable relief without straining state budgets.

Offender Revenue Pools: Diverting fines (BNSS Section 392), forfeited bail, and prison labor earnings into the Central Victim Compensation Fund (CVCF) could boost resources. In 2022, prisons across India generated a total of ₹267.03 crore[37] from the sale of products made by prison labor which could help in enhancing CVCF.

AI-Powered Claim Verification: Artificial intelligence could streamline claim processing, reducing timelines from 60 days to 3-5 days. AI which could automate most of the small claims and could verify minor assault claim using FIRs and medical data etc.

Social Impact Bonds for Rehabilitation: Social impact bonds (SIBs) could fund rehabilitation—shelter, training, therapy—via private investment, with returns tied to outcomes like victim employment. The UK’s Peterborough SIB cut reoffending by 9%[38]; a ₹50 crore SIB in India could support 1,000 victims annually, easing public costs.

Instant Compensation Post-FIR: An automatic ₹1 lakh payment within 72 hours of an FIR for crimes like acid attacks, as urged in Laxmi v. Union of India[39] could use Aadhaar-linked transfers to bypass delays. Gujarat, with its strong DBT system[40], could trial this, adjusting final amounts later via DLSA review.

Mental Health Support Framework: A dedicated mental health fund could offer ₹50,000-₹2 lakh for therapy, inspired by Canada’s PTSD support (Ontario Ministry, 2023). Integrated with VCS, this could hire 500 counselors nationwide, addressing trauma beyond financial aid, starting with high-case states like Uttar Pradesh.

Corporate CSR Contributions: Mandating 1% of CSR budgets from top 500 Indian firms to victim funds could raise ₹200 crore annually—e.g., Tata Group’s ₹670 crore CSR in 2023, could contribute ₹6.7 crore. Tax incentives from corporates would encourage public-private participation, bolstering CVCF resources.

National Compensation Authority: A National Victim Compensation Authority (NVCA) under NALSA could enforce uniformity, monitor disbursals, and uphold the Supreme Court’s 60-day rule[41].

Victim Data Analytics Hub: A national analytics hub could use crime data to predict compensation needs—e.g., mapping heinous crimes through NCRB[42] yearly crime reports to pre-allocate funds. Linked to CCTNS, this would enable proactive budgeting and resource distribution.

11. Conclusion

Victim compensation in India has evolved into a cornerstone of justice under the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, replacing the CrPC and reinforcing state-funded relief through Section 396. Judicial milestones like Rudul Sah and Laxmi have entrenched this right within Article 21’s promise of dignity, yet challenges persist—disparities in compensation quanta (₹25,000 in Chhattisgarh vs. ₹10 lakh in Goa), administrative delays, and a financial-only focus that sidelines rehabilitation. Recent strides, such as the Supreme Court’s 60-day disbursal mandate (2023) and digital VCS portals in Kerala and Delhi (2024), signal progress, while innovations like blockchain, AI, and crime insurance offer transformative potential. By addressing these gaps with uniform standards, technological integration, and diverse funding, India can build a victim-centric system that not only compensates but restores, fulfilling the constitutional vision of equality and justice.

References

  1. Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, UN Doc A/RES/40/34 (29 November 1985)
  2. Chakrabarti, N. K. (1998). Victim Assistance and Compensation to Crime Victims under Indian Criminal Justice System. Punjab Police Academy.
  3. CICA Annual Report (2023). Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority: Annual Report and Accounts 2022-23. London: Home Office.
  4. Department of Social Development (2022). Victim Empowerment Programme: Annual Report. Pretoria: South African Government.
  5. Dube, D. (2018). Victim Compensation Schemes in India: An Analysis. International Journal of Criminal Justice Sciences, 13(2).
  6. Groenhuijsen, M. (2014). The Development of International Policy in Relation to Victims of Crime. International Review of Victimology, 20(1).
  7. Home Office (2023). Criminal Injuries Compensation Scheme Review. London: UK Government.
  8. Joshi, K. C. (1988). Compensation Through Writs: Rudul Sah to Mehta. Journal of the Indian Law Institute, 30(1).
  9. Kishan, H. (2021). Victim Compensation Laws in India: The Visible Fault Lines. Indian Journal of Law and Legal Research, 3(2).
  10. Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General (2023). Victim Quick Response Program Guidelines. Toronto: Government of Ontario.
  11. VOCAT (2023). Victims of Crime Assistance Tribunal: Annual Report 2022-23. Melbourne: Victorian Government.
  12. R.V. Kelkar, Lectures on Criminal Procedure, 7th edn., revised by K.N. Chandrasekharan Pillai (Lucknow: Eastern Book Company, 2020).

[1]The Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 2009 (India).

[2]Hammurabi, The Code of Hammurabi, c. 1754 BCE, translated by L.W. King.

[3]Justinian I, Corpus Juris Civilis, 533 CE, translated by S.P. Scott.

[4]Chapter VIII, Verse 287

[5]Compensation for the Victims of Criminal Violence, St. John’s Law review, Vol 40. No. 1 (1965)

[6]Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, UN Doc A/RES/40/34 (29 November 1985)

[7]Supra Note 1 at 1

[8]Ministry of Home Affairs, Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme Guidelines, Government of India, 2015; Initially ₹200 crore allocated by the Nirbhaya Fund.

[9]Government of Odisha, Odisha Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017.

[10]The Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India (2014) directed DLSAs to ensure speedy disbursement of compensation, especially for acid attack victims.

[11](1983) SCC (4) 141

[12](1993) 2 SCC 746.

[13]The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012, No. 32 of 2012, Acts of Parliament, 2012.

[14]Legislative Department, The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, No. 33 of 1989, Acts of Parliament, 1989.

[15]Legislative Department, The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, No. 43 of 2005, Acts of Parliament, 2005.

[16]Legislative Department, The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, No. 59 of 1988, Acts of Parliament, 1988.

[17]Legislative Department, The Bhopal Gas Leak Disaster (Processing of Claims) Act, 1985, No. 21 of 1985, Acts of Parliament, 1985.

[18]Legislative Department, The Consumer Protection Act, 2019, No. 35 of 2019, Acts of Parliament, 2019, § 39.

[19]Legislative Department, The Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, No. 20 of 1958, Acts of Parliament, 1958.

[20]Supra Note 12, at 4.

[21](1995) 1 SCC 14.

[22](2013) 6 SCC 770.

[23](2016) 3 SCC 669

[24](2016) 4 SCC 461.

[25](1987) 1 SCC 395.

[26]Supra Note 27 at 6.

[27]Supra Note 28 at 6.

[28]Aswasanidhi, Department of Women & Child Development, Government of Kerala

[29]‘Avlamban Fund Scheme, 2024’, Office of Principal & Session Judge (HQs) Delhi

[30](1988) 4 SCC 551

[31]Criminal Injuries Compensation Act, 1995 (UK), c.53.

[32]Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Annual Report and Accounts 2022–2023 (UK Ministry of Justice, 2023),

[33]Victims of Crime Assistance Act 1996 (Vic), Act No. 81/1996 (Australia)

[34]Ontario Ministry of the Attorney General, Victim Quick Response Program+ (VQRP+) (2023),

[35]Department of Social Development, South Africa, Victim Empowerment Programme (VEP) (1998)

[36]Kalvet, T., “Innovation: A Factor Explaining E-Government Success in Estonia,” (2012) Electronic Government: An International Journal, Vol. 9(2), pp.

[37]Right to Wages behind bars, Abhinay Lakshman, The Hindu

[38]Peterborough Social Impact Bond: Final Evaluation Report, Government of the United Kingdom

[39]Supra Note 27 at 6.

[40]Government of Gujarat, State Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT) Dashboard

[41](2019) 2 SCC 703

[42]Crime Report 2022, NCRB, MoH

Author: Gaurav Beniwal

Leave a comment