Abstract
India, a country where crime against women remains a persistent systemic challenge with more than 31,000 rape cases registered in 2022, faces an urgent need to pivot its focus from mere criminal prosecution toward the comprehensive socio-economic rehabilitation of survivors. The landmark Supreme Court judgment in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India (2018) sought to rectify the arbitrary nature of victim compensation, recognizing uniform financial relief not as a state charity, but as a fundamental right under Article 21. This directive birthed the standardized NALSA Victim Compensation Scheme (2018).
However, this paper critically examines the stark dichotomy between the de jure mandate of uniform compensation and the de facto reality experienced by survivors on the ground. By analysing the implementation of the NALSA scheme through District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs), alongside the transition to Section 396 of the BNSS, 2023, this research identifies severe structural hindrances paralysing the disbursal process.
Keywords
Victim Compensation, Survivor Rehabilitation, Crimes Against Women, NALSA Scheme 2018, Nipun Saxena Judgment, Section 396 BNSS, District Legal Services Authorities, Article 21.
Introduction
According to Social Contract Theory, individuals entrust the state with authority in return for protection of their life, liberty and security; therefore the protection of survivors of sexual offences is a fundamental duty of the state. However, when a crime occurs, it signifies a failure of the state to uphold this protective mandate. In such instances, the state's obligation does not end with criminal prosecution; it extends to the restorative justice and socio-economic rehabilitation of the survivor. Swami Vivekananda, "the best thermometer to the progress of a nation is its treatment of its women."
Crime against women not only affects women's self-esteem and dignity but also degrades the pace of societal development. The physical veil may have vanished, but an invisible veil of societal restrictions still binds her. She survives this daily denial of freedom, but the trauma of sexual violence shatters her completely, stripping away her essence and leaving behind a profound void. Article 51A makes it a fundamental duty of every Indian citizen, inter alia 'to have compassion for living creatures' and to 'develop humanism'. Sexual offences not only violate criminal law but also infringe human rights and constitutional guarantees.
Such offences violate survivors' rights to equality, bodily integrity, privacy and personal security as recognised in Articles 1, 3, 5 and 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. They are further inconsistent with the principles embodied in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, CEDAW, which obligates states to protect women from gender-based violence and discrimination. Sexual violence also violates Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, undermining survivors' rights to equality, non-discrimination, life, personal liberty and dignity.
Consequently, the state's responsibility extends beyond the prosecution and punishment of the offender to ensure adequate compensation, rehabilitation, and socio-economic reintegration of survivors. In Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, the Supreme Court recognised rape as a crime not only against the survivor but against society. It can cause profound psychological harm and push a survivor into deep emotional crises. It is only by her sheer willpower that she rehabilitates herself in the society which, on coming to know of the rape, looks down upon her in derision and contempt. Rape is, therefore, the most hated crime.
This paper attempts to unpack victim-compensation frameworks, evaluating their structural hierarchies, disbursement mechanisms, and recent statutory shifts. Through a critical lens, this study explores whether these recent schemes successfully bridge the gap between legislative intent and survivor rehabilitation, or if they remain entangled in bureaucratic inertia.
National Crime Records Bureau data show that reported rape cases remained close to 30,000 annually between 2022 and 2024, underscoring the continuing need for an effective compensation framework.
Historical Evolution and Funding Mechanisms
Section 396 BNSS is the product of The Malimath Committee Report 2003, in 2008 Parliament amended the CrPC to introduce Section 357A (effective 2009). For the first time, the law mandated State Governments to prepare victim-compensation schemes in coordination with the Central Government. The Union Finance Ministry introduced the Nirbhaya Fund in 2013 after the Nirbhaya gang-rape case. It includes three principal programmes, Mahila Police Volunteer Scheme, One Stop Center Scheme, Universalisation of Women Helpline Scheme. Despite increase in crime against women and children every year in the Country the overall utilisation of released to States & UTs stands at mere 11%.
Only INR 252 crore had been utilised by States & UTs against the allocation of INR 2,264 Cr. by the Union.
III. Statutory and Institutional Framework for Economic Rehabilitation of Sexual-Offence Survivors
A. The NCW Scheme for Relief and Rehabilitation of Victims of Rape
The Supreme Court observed in Delhi Domestic Working Women's Forum Vs. Union of India that having regard to the Directive principles contained in the Article 38(1) of the Constitution, it was necessary to set up Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as rape victims besides the mental anguish, frequently incur substantial financial loss and in some cases are too traumatised to continue in employment. The Court further directed that compensation for victims shall be awarded by the Court on conviction of the offender and by the Criminal Injuries compensation board whether or not a conviction has taken place.
The Board shall take into account the pain, suffering and shock as well as loss of earnings due to pregnancy and the expenses of child birth if this occurs as a result of rape. In 2016 Tekan v. State of M. P. (2016) 4 SCC 461: (2016) 2 SCC (Sri) 307, the Supreme Court has opined that States should consider and formulate a uniform scheme specially for rape victims. It has been clarified that NCW Scheme for Rehabilitation of Victims with Special Needs is in addition to Victim Compensation Scheme under S. 3969.
The scheme shall cover all cases where an application has been filed either by the rape victim or by any person/organisation/ department/ commission claiming on her behalf.
2.
District Board for Criminal Injuries Relief and Rehabilitation, of particular district shall have jurisdiction to deal with applications received under this scheme. The Board posses power to award financial relief in all cases of rape and order such other relief and Rehabilitation measures as deemed fit in the circumstances of the Case. The board has to perform some important Functions as per the scheme it shall provide psychological, medical and legal assistance to the victims; provide support to young victims for education, professional training or training for sel employment; provide any other assistance for appropriate rehabilitation of the victims;
3. State Board for Criminal Injuries Relief and Rehabilitation, monitors the functions of the District board and ensure proper disbursement of the funds allocated to it by the Central Government and any additional amount supplemented by the State Government, to the district Boards. It Issue directions to the appropriate authorities for ensuring proper medical, psychological and legal assistance to the victim The State board act as a appellate body, it can enhance the compensation with upper limit of 3 Lakhs with prior approval of the National Board.
Estimates the requirement of the funds/budget. It Administer and Allocate funds to the State Boards. The Funds is provided by the central government for the budgetary requirements for implementation of the scheme, to the MWCD which would be transferred to the District Boards as Grant in Aid, through the National Board 10.
B. SECTION 396 BNSS Is the only statuary provision which gives Victim for the award of compensation to victims of crime through the Victim Compensation Scheme. Irrespective of the discharge, acquittal and where the offender is untraced or unidentified, but the victim is identified in such case the victim or his dependent shall have a compensation by making a application to state legal service authority or the district legal service authority for compensation. Furthermore the SLSA and DLSA may order for immediate first aid and medical benefits to the victim for free of cost, ensuring timely relief and support.
The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (Act 46 of 2023), s. 396.
arrange shelter to the victim, for such period as the Circumstances warrant. The upper limit n In compliance with statutory mandates, states have formulated localised frameworks to facilitate economic rehabilitation. A prominent example is the Haryana Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 202012, which established a dedicated 'Women Victim Compensation Fund'. This scheme outlines speci c nancial parameters for survivors; for instance, Schedule-1 mandates a minimum compensation of ₹4 Lakhs and an upper limit of ₹7 Lakhs for survivors of rape, while the limits for gang rape are set between ₹5 Lakhs and ₹10 Lakhs.
Furthermore, to alleviate immediate suffering, the scheme contains provisions for an interim relief disbursement of ₹5,000 to ₹10,000 via a preloaded cash card immediately upon receipt of the application. Victim can also le an appeal within 30 day to Chairperson of DLSA.
Victim Compensation Scheme includes:
1. Compensation received under the Central Victim Compensation Fund Scheme 2015.2. Grants allocated by state government through annual budget to state legal service authority. 3. Amount directed by civil courts to be deposited into the fund. 4. Compensation amount recovered from offenders under the scheme. 5. Donations and contribution from national and international charitable organisation, institutions, and individuals approved by central or state government. 6. Contribution received from companies under corporate social responsibility in initiatives. Conditions requisites for applying for Compensation: 1. Mandatory reporting of FIR. 2.
An Application can be filed by the Victim /Dependants / SHO to DLSA, SLSA or online portal of SLSA. 3. Along with copy of FIR, Medical report, Death Certificate if applicable and a Copy of judgement.
Administration of Justice Department, Haryana Government. (2020, June 2). Notification No. S. O. 24/C. A. 2/1974/S.
357A/2020: Haryana Compensation Scheme for Women Victims/Survivors of Sexual Assault/other Crimes, 2020.
fi
State Victim Compensation Scheme
NALSA Compensation Scheme
Building upon the Supreme Court's mandate in the Nipun Saxena case, the 2018 NALSA Scheme established a uniform, comprehensive framework to ensure victims are compensated fairly and promptly across all jurisdictions. To build a dedicated financial infrastructure, the scheme mandated the creation of a "Women Victims Compensation Fund" operated at the state level by the State Legal Services Authority (SLSA), which pools resources from Central and State budgets, tribunal costs, recovered compensations, and Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) contributions.
It eliminated the arbitrary awarding of compensation by outlining uniform assessment criteria, requiring authorities to consider the gravity of the injury, medical and counseling expenditures, loss of educational or employment opportunities, and the overall financial condition of the victim. Shifting the administrative burden away from the victim, the scheme requires that police officials immediately share relevant FIRs with the SLSA or District Legal Services Authority (DLSA), enabling authorities to proactively initiate suo-moto verification for interim relief.
To ensure swift support, inquiries for compensation must be completed within a strict 60-day timeframe, with mandated interim financial relief being no less than 25% of the maximum awardable compensation. Furthermore, to protect the victim's long-term rehabilitation and financial security, the scheme dictates that 75% of the final compensation amount (and 80% for minor victims) must be placed in a fixed deposit for a minimum of three years, leaving the remainder available for immediate expenses.
Finally, the framework introduced strong accountability mechanisms, allowing the state to recover the awarded compensation directly from the perpetrator or to recover funds if a trial court determines the criminal allegations were entirely false.
This diagram illustrates the standardized benchmark compensation limits established by the Implementation and Utilisation of Funds Data
1. Out of the ₹3,600 crore corpus, the Union government allocated ₹2,264 crore to States and UTs. However, only 11% (₹252 crore) has actually been spent.
2. Fund Distribution: The majority of the funds are routed through the Ministry of Home Affairs (74%) and the Ministry of Women and Child Development (17%).
State Performance Highlights
Overall Apathy: No state spent more than 50% of its allocated money, and half of all States/ UTs spent less than 15%.
Highest Utilisation: Uttarakhand and Mizoram performed the "best," utilising just 50% of their funds.
Zero Spending: States like Maharashtra, Manipur, Meghalaya, Sikkim, and Tripura spent absolutely nothing (0%). Maharashtra's failure is particularly alarming given its high ranking in crimes against women and children.
Tragic Ironies: Delhi, the epicenter of the Nirbhaya tragedy and subsequent protests, spent a mere 5%. Similarly, states witnessing recent high-pro le crimes (Karnataka, Telangana, and Odisha) utilized only 6%. Uttar Pradesh performed slightly better at 21%, though it still left 79% of its funds unspent.
The Ministry of Women and Child Development, Government of India recently presented data in
Suggestion and Conclusion
The economic rehabilitation of a sexual offence survivor is not an administrative afterthought; it is the cornerstone of restorative justice. As this analysis reveals, India does not suffer from a poverty of resources or a dearth of legislative frameworks. The existence of dedicated funds and standardized compensation schemes demonstrates a clear legislative intent to uphold the survivor's right to life and dignity. However, the true deficit lies in institutional will and bureaucratic empathy. When allocated capital stagnates in state coffers while survivors are left to navigate the aftermath of trauma without financial support, the state commits a secondary, administrative breach of its social contract.
The current legal architecture inadvertently forces the survivor to become a petitioner for her own constitutional rights. To rectify this, the overarching paradigm must shift from a welfare-based approach to a strictly rights-based mechanism. Financial restitution must be decoupled from the glacial pace of the criminal justice system and the rigid evidentiary burdens of local authorities. Institutions like the District Legal Services Authorities must evolve from passive dispensers of funds into proactive guardians of survivor rehabilitation, triggering support the moment the state's protective machinery is engaged.
Furthermore, financial oversight mechanisms must evolve beyond mere accounting; audits should be treated as barometers of human rights compliance, penalizing institutional apathy. Ultimately, legal guarantees on paper are rendered meaningless if they do not translate into economic autonomy on the ground. True justice requires recognizing that economic protection is the vital bridge between merely surviving a crime and reclaiming one's life. Until the state machinery treats the immediate financial rehabilitation of a survivor with the same absolute urgency as the prosecution of the offender, the promise of equal protection and personal liberty will remain unfulfilled.
Primary materials
Key primary materials: Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Supreme Court of India judgments.