Rigours of UAPA Melt Before Article 21: Jharkhand High Court Grants Bail After Six Years of Incarceration Accused Cannot Challenge in Arguments What He Never Challenged in Cross-Examination: Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds POCSO Conviction Counterblast Plea, Civil Dispute Defence No Shield When Cognizable Offence Is Disclosed: Allahabad High Court Refuses To Quash FIR Against Ex-Driver Accused Of Outraging Modesty Lawyers Who Burned a Colleague's Furniture for Defending Toll Workers Have Tainted a Noble Profession: Supreme Court A Suspicious Dying Declaration Cannot Hang a Man: Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction IQ of 65, Memory Loss, Frontal Lobe Damage: Supreme Court Holds Brain-Injured Manager Suffered 100% Functional Disability, Enhances Compensation to ₹97.73 Lakh Cannot Be Forced to Pay Gratuity to Retired Employees Who Refuse to Vacate Company Quarters: Supreme Court Victim Who Incited Riot Inside Court Cannot Blame Accused for Trial Delay: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Section 307 Case You Cannot Sell What You Don’t Own: ‘Vendor’s Half Share Means Buyer Gets Only Half’ : Andhra Pradesh High Court Nagaland's Oil Laws Face Constitutional Challenge: Gauhati High Court Sends Union-State Dispute to Supreme Court Order 22 Rule 3 CPC | Will's Validity Cannot Be Decided in Substitution Proceedings: Himachal Pradesh High Court 6-Year-Old Loses Arm To Live 11kV Wire Passing 'Almost Touching' Her Balcony: Punjab & Haryana High Court Awards Rs. 99.93 Lakh To Child Despite Nigam Blaming Father For 'Extending Balcony' Supreme Court Invokes Article 142 To Quash Rape & POCSO Conviction After Marriage Between Accused And Victim NGT Cannot Order Demolition of Temple On Ground of Encroachment of Park: Supreme Court Quashes Removal Order For Want of Jurisdiction Hostile Witnesses & Doubtful Recovery Can Collapse Prosecution: J&K High Court Sets High Threshold for Criminal Proof Compassion Cannot Override the Clock: Karnataka HC Denies Job to Guardian Aunt Despite 2021 Rule Change” Second Marriage During Pendency of Divorce Appeal Is Void: Kerala High Court Appearing in Exam Does Not Cure Attendance Deficiency: MP High Court Upholds 'Year Down' Against BBA Student With Sub-30% Attendance Patna High Court Directs Bihar To Submit Detailed Rehabilitation Plan For Recovered Mental Health Patients, Expand Half-Way Homes Across State Rajasthan High Court Upholds Refusal to Drop Bharat Band Stone-Pelting Case

"Interest on Delayed Compensation for Riot Victims is Justified," Rules Delhi High Court in 1984 Riots

04 September 2024 1:10 PM

By: sayum


In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has directed the Union of India to pay 10% interest per annum on a delayed ex gratia payment awarded to a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots. The court, presided over by Acting Chief Justice and Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, emphasized the government's failure to adhere to the timelines prescribed under the 2006 Rehabilitation Policy, recognizing the victim’s prolonged struggle for justice and compensation.

Facts of the Case: Gurnam Singh, the appellant, a victim of the 1984 Anti-Sikh riots, sought compensation for the looting and destruction of his family home in Shahdara, Delhi. Despite filing an FIR soon after the riots and applying for compensation in December 1987, Singh did not receive any payment until April 2016, after filing multiple writ petitions. The compensation, set at Rs. 1,00,000, was awarded more than three decades after the incident, with Singh subsequently seeking interest on the delayed payment.

The court observed that the appellant’s struggle for compensation spanned over three decades, during which time he was forced to file multiple petitions due to administrative delays. The court noted that despite clear evidence of the appellant’s victim status and the government's policy to compensate riot victims, Singh had to wait until 2016 for the disbursement. The bench emphasized that the delay was attributable to the respondents, particularly from January 16, 2006, when the enhanced compensation policy was issued.

While the government contended that ex gratia payments do not typically include an interest component, the court held that constitutional courts have the authority to grant reasonable interest in cases of significant and unjustified delays. The court relied on a precedent from a similar case, Union of India & Ors vs. Premwati, where interest on delayed ex gratia compensation was upheld despite the absence of a specific stipulation in the policy.

The court scrutinized the Rehabilitation Policy issued by the Union of India on January 16, 2006, which mandated a time-bound process for verifying, assessing, and disbursing compensation to riot victims. The policy's intent was to provide timely relief to the victims, a purpose defeated by the extensive delay in Singh's case. The court concluded that despite the absence of a specific provision for interest in the policy, the government's failure to adhere to the stipulated timelines justified the award of interest.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela remarked, "Beneficial policies, particularly those aimed at rehabilitating victims of communal violence, cannot be rendered meaningless through administrative delays. In this case, the prolonged delay in disbursing ex gratia compensation warrants the award of interest."

The Delhi High Court's ruling underscores the judiciary's role in ensuring timely justice and the enforcement of government policies intended to aid victims. By awarding interest on the delayed ex gratia payment, the judgment sets a precedent that emphasizes the need for adherence to time-bound processes in compensatory schemes. The Union of India has been directed to pay the accrued interest within six weeks, alongside a cost of Rs. 25,000 to the appellant.

Date of Decision: August 21, 2024​.

Gurnam Singh vs. Union of India & Ors

Latest Legal News