About the Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme In a petition filed by Prajwala [ W.P. (C) No. 56/2004 titled Prajwala Vs. Union of India], being heard by the Supreme Court. The Court had asked NALSA to file a report setting out the problem vis-a-vis prevention, rescue and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation and give appropriate suggestions for dealing with the same. Accordingly a Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Judge, Supreme Court of India was constituted to to examine the issue. Other Members of the Committee included: Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Judges of the Delhi High Court, Shri Kumar Alok, Joint Secretary, MHA, Shri Taj Hassan, Special CP(Crime), Ms. Ashwani Lal, Joint Director, WCD, Ms. Dipa Dixit, former member, NCPCR, Dr. Savita Bhakhry, Joint Director (Research), NHRC, Ms. Akhila Sivadas, Executive Director, CFAR, Ms. Bharti Ali, HAQ Centre for Child Rights, Shri Bhuwan Ribhu, Bachpan Bachao Andolan, Shri Ravi Kant, President, Shakti Vahini and Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Advocate, are the members of the Committee. The Petitioner Dr. Sunita Krishnan, Founder, Prajwala and her counsel in the present petition Ms. Aparna Bhat were also members and actively participated in the deliberations. Three sub- committees were constituted which submitted reports on the following: I. Concepts and definitions; II. Identification of strengths and gaps in legislation, schemes, practices, processes and existing protocols, including in judgments; III. Preparation of comprehensive protocols on prevention, pre-rescue, rescue, post- rescue, and rehabilitation. One of the aspects deliberated upon was victim compensation as the NALSA report clearly pointed out that "There is no provision for victim compensation, or at uniform rates across the country for a victim of trafficking for sexual exploitation" [pt 18, pg 18]. The analysis of victim compensation schemes in the states that HAQ had shared with the Justice Sikri Committee clearly pointed out that states with high rate of trafficking in women and children have very low amounts to offer by way of compensation to the victims of human trafficking e.g. Chhattisgarh scheme prescribed an amount of 20,000/- only, whereas states like Nagaland and Tamil Nadu prescribed INR 1 lakh. The report of the Sub-Committee reviewing existing laws, programmes and schemes accordingly took note it and highlighted the need for a uniform and standardised victim compensation policy. It also suggested a uniform set of guidelines and scheme covering all new offences recognised by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and the POCSO Act. [Annexure D, Report of National Legal Services Authority, Submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (C) No. 56/2004 titled Prajwala Vs. Union of India, pg. 46]. The Ministry of Home Affairs took note of the same and accordingly prepared the Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme (CVCF Scheme) and Guidelines for its implementation,
Transcript
About the Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme In a petition filed by Prajwala [ W.P. (C) No. 56/2004 titled Prajwala Vs. Union of India], being heard by the Supreme Court. The Court had asked NALSA to file a report setting out the problem vis-a-vis prevention, rescue and rehabilitation of victims of trafficking for commercial sexual exploitation and give appropriate suggestions for dealing with the same. Accordingly a Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice A.K.Sikri, Judge, Supreme Court of India was constituted to to examine the issue. Other Members of the Committee included: Hon’ble Dr. Justice S.Muralidhar, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manmohan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Judges of the Delhi High Court, Shri Kumar Alok, Joint Secretary, MHA, Shri Taj Hassan, Special CP(Crime), Ms. Ashwani Lal, Joint Director, WCD, Ms. Dipa Dixit, former member, NCPCR, Dr. Savita Bhakhry, Joint Director (Research), NHRC, Ms. Akhila Sivadas, Executive Director, CFAR, Ms. Bharti Ali, HAQ Centre for Child Rights, Shri Bhuwan Ribhu, Bachpan Bachao Andolan, Shri Ravi Kant, President, Shakti Vahini and Ms. B. Sunita Rao, Advocate, are the members of the Committee. The Petitioner Dr. Sunita Krishnan, Founder, Prajwala and her counsel in the present petition Ms. Aparna Bhat were also members and actively participated in the deliberations. Three sub- committees were constituted which submitted reports on the following: I. Concepts and definitions; II. Identification of strengths and gaps in legislation, schemes, practices, processes and existing protocols, including in judgments; III. Preparation of comprehensive protocols on prevention, pre-rescue, rescue, post- rescue, and rehabilitation. One of the aspects deliberated upon was victim compensation as the NALSA report clearly pointed out that "There is no provision for victim compensation, or at uniform rates across the country for a victim of trafficking for sexual exploitation" [pt 18, pg 18]. The analysis of victim compensation schemes in the states that HAQ had shared with the Justice Sikri Committee clearly pointed out that states with high rate of trafficking in women and children have very low amounts to offer by way of compensation to the victims of human trafficking e.g. Chhattisgarh scheme prescribed an amount of 20,000/- only, whereas states like Nagaland and Tamil Nadu prescribed INR 1 lakh. The report of the Sub-Committee reviewing existing laws, programmes and schemes accordingly took note it and highlighted the need for a uniform and standardised victim compensation policy. It also suggested a uniform set of guidelines and scheme covering all new offences recognised by Criminal Law Amendment Act, 2013 and the POCSO Act. [Annexure D, Report of National Legal Services Authority, Submitted to the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in W.P. (C) No. 56/2004 titled Prajwala Vs. Union of India, pg. 46]. The Ministry of Home Affairs took note of the same and accordingly prepared the Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme (CVCF Scheme) and Guidelines for its implementation,
which was notified on 14 October 2015. The notification requires the state governments to revise their victim compensation schemes accordingly. Key objectives of the scheme are:
to support and supplement the existing victim compensation schemes notified by state governments and Union Territory administrations,
to reduce disparity in quantum of compensation amount notified by different states and UTs for victims of similar crimes.
Salient Features of the Scheme include:
1. The Fund is set up with an initial corpus of Rs. 200 crore from the "Nirbhaya Fund" to support victims of various crimes, especially sexual offences including rape, acid attacks, crime against children, human trafficking, etc.
2. The Corpus can also receive contribution from corporates and public. 3. The Fund will be administered by an "Empowered Committee" chaired by Additional
Secretary (CS), MHA, with six other members, who will consider and approve proposals received from the state governments seeking financial assistance from the CVCF for victim compensation.
4. The scheme provides special financial assistance of INR 5 lakh to victims of acid attack, which is in addition to what they may receive under the state victim compensation scheme.
5. Victims below the age of 14 years are eligible for receiving enhanced compensation - 50% more than the amount specified in the scheme.
6. Children, both girls and boys, who are victims of sexual offences under the POCSO Act stand covered under the scheme, thereby ensuring that all state governments who have not yet revised their victim compensation to cover offences under the POCSO, do the needful if they wish to receive any financial assistance from the CVCF.
Eligibility Criteria for State Governments to avail Financial Assistance from Centre under the CVCF Scheme:
The states must have a Victim Compensation Scheme and the amount of compensation in the state scheme should not be less than that given in the CVCF Scheme.
The states will have to first pay compensation to the victims, maintain data base in this regard and claim reimbursement from the Centre on actual expenditure incurred.
There are of course some other areas of concern that remain unaddressed such as:
How will the scheme apply to cases tried under the POCSO Act, as the law requires the Special POCSO Courts to determine compensation, which can be more than what the scheme has to offer?
If POCSO courts are to decide on the interim compensation as required under the POCSO Act, many victims will have to wait till the matter reaches the court, by which time the interim compensation may lose its significance.
Which state is to pay compensation, the state where crime took place or the state that the child belongs to? In a case of trafficking, there may be several states/districts involved. Is the victim entitled to claim compensation from each of these states that failed to protect her? What if the victim is restored to her home district? Will she have to come back to open an account in the place where trial took place and then claim compensation?
We hope the Home Ministry will look into these concerns and find a suitable solution.
