Read Time: 11 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, directed the Central Government to grant interest on the delayed compensation to the victims of the 1984 Anti-Sikh Riots. The court further underscored the prolonged suffering of the victim and his family, who first endured the riots 40 years ago, and faced further hardship due to the administration's indifference and negligence, compelling them to repeatedly seek judicial intervention.

The bench of Acting Chief Justice Manmohan and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held, “The appellant and his family terribly suffered at the hands of the rioters exactly forty (40) years ago and the appellant again suffered at the hands of an insensitive and callous administration and had to approach the Constitutional Courts four (4) times for redressal of his grievances”. 

Anti-Sikh Riots started in the country following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi on October 31, 1984. The victim’s residence was looted during the riots on November 1st and 2nd, 1984. The Government of India issued a notification on November 6, 1984, offering compensation to victims, including Rs.10,000 for total destruction of a house and Rs.5,000 for substantial damage.

The victim had filed an FIR on November 9, 1984, reporting a loss of Rs.60,800 due to the looting. Subsequently, the victim sought compensation from the office of the Lieutenant Governor but received none despite pursuing the claim. On June 18, 1990, and January 16, 2006, the compensation amounts were enhanced.

The victim filed a writ petition in 2007, seeking Rs.6,08,000 with interest, which led to a court order in 2009 directing the GNCTD to consider the claim. However, on January 30, 2010, the Screening Committee rejected the claim, stating that the victim’s name was not on the list of those initially compensated. This led to another writ petition in 2011, which was disposed of in 2013 with instructions to re-examine the case.

On January 29, 2014, the Sub-Divisional Magistrate rejected the claim again, prompting another writ petition in 2014. The court directed the Screening Committee to issue a reasoned order, and on November 7, 2015, the Committee recommended a compensation of Rs.1,00,000, which was paid on April 8, 2016.

The victim then filed a writ petition in 2017, seeking either the market value of the lost goods or 12% annual interest on the awarded amount. This petition was dismissed by the Single Judge, on the grounds that the victim was not entitled to interest on the ex gratia compensation. Consequently, the present appeal was filed.

Advocate Monica Kapoor, representing the victim, notified that the victim was compelled to file three writ petitions to seek justice, with the Screening Committee only recommending ex gratia compensation of Rs. 1,00,000 on November 7, 2015. The victim received a cheque for this amount on April 8, 2016. Advocate Kapoor also stated that after the Rehabilitation Policy of January 16, 2006, was introduced, the victim filed a writ petition seeking Rs. 6,08,000, but did not pursue this claim further. Advocate Kapoor argued that due to the admitted delay in payment, which was attributed to the respondents, the victim was entitled to interest at 12% per annum on Rs. 10,000 from December 21, 1987, to April 8, 2016, and on the enhanced amount of Rs. 90,000 from January 16, 2006, to April 8, 2016. She contended that the learned Single Judge erred in denying interest, despite it being established law that interest is payable on delayed payments, even when caused by the government.

Advocate Apoorv Kurup, representing the Union,  counsel for the respondent (Union of India), supported the rationale of the impugned judgment. He argued that in cases where the government’s policies or orders do not specify interest on delayed ex gratia payments, courts should not grant such interest through a writ of mandamus. 

The court observed that the victim was undeniably a victim of the widespread riots that erupted in Delhi following the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. Numerous citizens lost their lives, and many suffered the destruction of property, vehicles, and homes, along with physical injuries. 

The court acknowledged the victim's suffering over the past four decades and noted that the delay in payment of ex gratia compensation was attributable to the government, particularly from the time the enhanced compensation was announced in 2006. Despite the policy lacking a provision for interest on delayed payments, the court recognized its authority under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant reasonable interest in such deserving cases.

The court carefully examined the terms of the Rehabilitation Policy, particularly paragraph 4, and observed that the policy mandated the disbursement of compensation, including enhancements up to ten times the previously assessed or paid amounts, in a time-bound manner. It was evident that both the State Governments, which were responsible for certain disbursals and the Central Government, which was to reimburse these expenses, were required to adhere to specific deadlines. The court concluded that the policy, introduced in 2006, was intended to be implemented within a set timeframe. 

Consequently, the court held that the ex gratia compensation of Rs.1,00,000/-, which was released to the victim on April 8, 2016, should accrue interest from the date of the policy's issuance on January 16, 2006.

Furthermore, the court referenced a similar judgment where interest on delayed ex gratia payments was deemed payable, reinforcing its decision to impose a reasonable interest on the delayed compensation in the victim's case. 

As a result, the court ordered that the victim be awarded interest at the rate of 10% per annum on the sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from January 16, 2006, until April 8, 2016. The Union of India was directed to calculate and pay the interest within six weeks. Additionally, the appeal was disposed of with a cost of Rs.25,000/- to be paid to the victim by the Union of India within the same timeframe.

Case Title: Gurnam Singh v Union Of India