Read Time: 08 minutes

A surprising turn of events took place in the suo moto matter (In re: Right to decent & dignified last rights/cremation) on Friday, when a document came on record which read that the State had earlier promised family of the Hathras gang-rape victim, a house and a job.

The Division Bench of Justice Rajan Roy and Justice Jaspreet Singh was hearing conclusive arguments on the question of grant of damages and benefits to the victim’s family.

Taking note of the document dated November 5 (year unknown) which was duly signed by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Superintendent of Police of Hathras, the Court asked the State Government to consider making the offer pertaining the reliefs as promised in the document. 

The Court said that it would be better that the State Government complies with the promise that it made to the victim's family and spare the Court from invoking its writ powers. 

The document was revealed while the Court was examining whether providing all four reliefs- basic pension, employment to one family member, provision of agricultural land, and a house to the deceased victim’s family as per the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,1995 is mandatory for the State Government or it has the discretion to deny any of it to the family. 

Amicus curiae, Senior Advocate Jaideep Narain Mathur brought various case-laws before the bench where item 46(i) of the amended norms for relief amount under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 was pondered upon. 

He averred that though the Schedule (in which item 46 is given) of the Rules of 1995 had been discussed in 4-5 cases, implementation of the provision had never been scrutinized.

He suggested that to lessen the agony of the distressed family, the bench can issue specific directions to state government to take an expedited decision on the question of granting relief of a house and one employment to the victim's family. 

To this, the Court enquired as to whether any such promise had been ever made to the victim's family by the state government after the incident and the then concerned document came to light. 

Reading the contents of the document, Amicus apprised the Court that though four promises ( Rs. 25 lakhs, a house, strict action against the culprits, and one employment) were made and as per the document all four had also received Chief Minister's sanction, still the family is here, fighting for their rights. 

Amicus submitted that out of the promised Rs. 25 lakhs, a sum of Rs. 10 lakhs had been transferred to the account of the victim's father, but besides that nothing had been provided. He averred, "Now they (State authorities) don't respond to the document. "

Taking note of these new developments, the Court found it in the interest of justice to the family that without investing more time to evaluate the sate's obligation as per the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules,1995, it would be better if the state sticks to its promises and makes an offer to the family pertaining to the reliefs.

However, the state counsel argued that earlier also a house in Hathras had been offered to the family but it was rejected as the family insisted on being accommodated in Delhi. 

Upon this, the Court suggested that a house in Hathras should satisfy the family's requirements. It said, "You (State Government) make an offer of a house in Hathras and one Group-C job to one of the victim's brothers, then it will be upto the family whether it accepts or rejects."

Stating thus, the Court adjourned the case till November 29 for further hearing. 

Cause Title: In Re: Right to decent and dignified last rites/cremation