# Suo-Moto Inre Right to Decent & Dignified Last Rites/Cremation v. State of U.P. & Ors. 1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

- **Citation:** (2022) 7 ILRA 1101
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-07-26
- **Case number:** Public Interest Litigation No. 16150 of 2020
- **Bench:** Rajan Roy, Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/suo-moto-inre-right-to-decent-dignified-last-rites-cremation-v-state-of-u-p-ors-48728
- **Pages:** 35

## Headnote

Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 - Section 15A (6) - Special Court or
the Exclusive Special Court trying a case
under this Act is required to provide to victim,
his
dependent,
informant
or
witnesses,
complete protection to secure the ends of
justice;
the
travelling
and
maintenance
expenses during investigation, inquiry and
trial; the social-economic rehabilitation during
investigation, inquiry and trial; and relocation,
but, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that
considering the importance of the issues,
cognizance of which has been taken by this
Court and suo moto proceedings have been
registered,
we
have
already
granted
protection to the victim's family instead of
making them run from pillar to post.

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989- Section 2(ec). - the word 'legal
guardian' used in Section 2(ec) would cover
guardians declared as such by any Act and
also guardians appointed by Courts in the
case of minors or lunatics. The term 'legal
heirs' would obviously get its meaning from
the law governing the right/inheritance to
succeed the estate of the victim. However,
the term 'relatives' used therein though it
has not been defined, it has been used to
give a wide meaning to the word 'victim' so
as to advance and achieve the Object of the
Act,
which
is
to
provide
relief
and
rehabilitation to the victims which includes
the family members of the deceased victim.
Ordinarily
it
includes
father,
mother,
husband or wife, son, daughter, brother,
sister,
nephew
or
niece,
grandson
or
granddaughter of an individual.
C. Rule 12 & Section 15A - Rule 12 of the
Rules, 1995 has to be read conjointly with
Section 15-A of the Act 1989. Sub-rule (1) of
Rule 12 of the Rules 1995. Sub-rule (4) of Rule
12 is relevant. It enjoins upon the District
Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or
any other Executive Magistrate to make
necessary
administrative
and
other
arrangements and provide relief in cash or in
kind or both within seven days to the victims of
atrocity, their family members and dependents
according to the scale as provided in Annexure-I
read with Anne

## Text

_Characters 0–39,622 of 120,994. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39622 for what follows._

7 All. Suo-moto Inre Right to Decent and Dignified Last Rites/Cremation Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.
1101
therefore, this Court has decided to
examine the question of public importance
involved in the present writ petition
without going into the question of alleged
personal grudge of the petitioner.

(ii). Order dated 30.1.1987 passed by
then
District
Magistrate,
Hardoi
for
resumption of the land in favour of the
private Trust was against the provisions of
Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950
as the then District Magistrate was not
empowered to resume the land for a private
person/ Trust in exercise of powers purported
to be vested in him under Section 117(6)
U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act, 1950 read with
notification dated 16.6.1981. The order
passed by the then District Magistrate was
void ab initio inasmuch as it created the right
in respect of the public utility land, which
was recorded as ''Jangal Dhak' in revenue
record of the relevant khatauni Fasli Years.

(iii). The District Magistrate, Hardoi
after
considering
the
three
members
committee report, has rightly held that the
order dated 30.1.1987 was void ab initio and
the committee has noted the fraud played by
the Trustees in its detailed report. Therefore,
the order passed by the District Magistrate for
cancelling the entries in favour of opposite
party no.5 etc., is in accordance with law and
the District Magistrate deserves full credit for
his decision, which has been taken in
accordance with law.

(vi). As discussed above, in respect of
the public utility land, no bhumidhari right
can be accrued. The land recorded as ''Jangal
Dhak', is a public utility land and under
Section 132 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act,
1950, no bhumidhari right could not have
been created in respect of the land in
question. Section 101 of the U.P. Revenue
Code, 2006 empowers the Sub-Divisional
Officer for exchange of land, but this power
does not extend to the land of the Gram
Sabha, which is a public utility land and in
which no bhumidhari right can be accrued.
Therefore, no exchange is possible in respect
of the land in question.

60. In view of the aforesaid discussion,
writ petition is allowed with the following
directions: -

1. Opposite party no.5 and other illegal
occupants of the land in question are to be
evicted forthwith inasmuch as the orders of
eviction have already been passed in
compliance of the order passed by the District
Magistrate on 4.6.2021.

2. Necessary action must get completed
within 15 days regarding eviction. With
respect to compensation, the appeal(s) shall
be heard and decided by the competent
authority against the orders passed by the
Tehsildar,
Sadar,
Hardoi
expeditiously
preferably within a period of one month from
the date of the order.

61. Let a copy of this judgment be
communicated
forthwith
to
the
Chief
Secretary,
Additional
Chief
Secretary/Principal Secretary, Revenue and
the District Magistrates, Hardoi and Sitapur
for necessary compliance.
----------
(2022)07ILR A1101
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 26.07.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE RAJAN ROY, J.
THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Public Interest Litigation No. 16150 of 2020

Suo-Moto Inre Right to Decent & Dignified
Last Rites/Cremation
 ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents
1102 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Abhinav Bhattacharya, Ajit Singh, Anjani Kumar
Mishra, Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Atul Kumar
Singh, Digvijay Singh Yadav, Jaideep Narain
Mathur(Ac, Nadeem Murtaza, Onkar Singh,
Pradeep
Kumar
Singh,
Seema
Kushwaha,
Sharad Bhatnagar

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., A.S.G., Anurag Kumar Singh, Ashok
Shukla, Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, Manjusha,
Pranjal Krishna, Satyaveer Singh

A. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989 - Section 15A (6) - Special Court or
the Exclusive Special Court trying a case
under this Act is required to provide to victim,
his
dependent,
informant
or
witnesses,
complete protection to secure the ends of
justice;
the
travelling
and
maintenance
expenses during investigation, inquiry and
trial; the social-economic rehabilitation during
investigation, inquiry and trial; and relocation,
but, we cannot be unmindful of the fact that
considering the importance of the issues,
cognizance of which has been taken by this
Court and suo moto proceedings have been
registered,
we
have
already
granted
protection to the victim's family instead of
making them run from pillar to post.

B. Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act,
1989- Section 2(ec). - the word 'legal
guardian' used in Section 2(ec) would cover
guardians declared as such by any Act and
also guardians appointed by Courts in the
case of minors or lunatics. The term 'legal
heirs' would obviously get its meaning from
the law governing the right/inheritance to
succeed the estate of the victim. However,
the term 'relatives' used therein though it
has not been defined, it has been used to
give a wide meaning to the word 'victim' so
as to advance and achieve the Object of the
Act,
which
is
to
provide
relief
and
rehabilitation to the victims which includes
the family members of the deceased victim.
Ordinarily
it
includes
father,
mother,
husband or wife, son, daughter, brother,
sister,
nephew
or
niece,
grandson
or
granddaughter of an individual.
C. Rule 12 & Section 15A - Rule 12 of the
Rules, 1995 has to be read conjointly with
Section 15-A of the Act 1989. Sub-rule (1) of
Rule 12 of the Rules 1995. Sub-rule (4) of Rule
12 is relevant. It enjoins upon the District
Magistrate or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or
any other Executive Magistrate to make
necessary
administrative
and
other
arrangements and provide relief in cash or in
kind or both within seven days to the victims of
atrocity, their family members and dependents
according to the scale as provided in Annexure-I
read with Annexure-II of the Schedule annexed
to these rules and such immediate relief shall
also include food, water, clothing, shelter,
medical aid, transport facilities and other
essential items. Thus, this Rule is in furtherance
of the object of the Act to provide relief and
rehabilitation to the victim of an atrocity under
the Act, 1989. 47.

D. Item 46 of the Schedule Annexure I to
the Rules- the word 'may' used in Column 3
corresponding to the item 46 is indicative of the
fact that the benefits mentioned therein would
be available only where the provision applies
and also where there is a need for the same. As
far as Item 46 is concerned the object is to
provide
measures
of
socioeconomic
rehabilitation to a victim of an atrocity under the
Act 1989 in cases where they are in need of
such rehabilitation. In Clause (i) of Column 3 of
Item 46 there are three parts which have to be
read, understood and applied disjunctively. the
first part applies to the widow or other
dependents who are entitled to basic pension
etc. mentioned therein whose need is selfevident, the second part applies to one member
of the family of the deceased who is to be given
employment where it is required to be given and
not where there are family members already in
employment capable of taking care of the family
unless there are exceptional reasons in the
sense that the employment is not adequate or
sufficient to sustain the family members, who
may be large in numbers etc. The third part
speaks of provision of agricultural land and
house, if necessary by outright purchase. This
third part does not mention as to whom it is to
be provided, however, in view of our discussion
hereinabove we are of the opinion that this
would be provided where there is a need for
providing such agricultural land and house,
7 All. Suo-moto Inre Right to Decent and Dignified Last Rites/Cremation Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.
1103
meaning thereby, such cases in which the victim
or the family members of the victim are very
poor, landless, shelterless or land held by them
is inadequate for their sustenance and the
house or shelter which they own or are in
possession of is inadequate in any manner.

E. In the event of ambiguity an interpretation
which advances the object of the Act and
provision should be preferred and not one which
defeats the object of the provisions.

F. if ultimately the incident of atrocity is found
to be false in the sense that the incident itself
did not occur or the informant or victim's family
belonging to SC/ST are themselves held to be
the perpetrators of atrocity, then, all reliefs
given under the Act 1989 are liable to be
recovered with such other action as may be
permissible in law. This is necessary to
discourage frivolous cases/claims under the Act
1989.

G. Sub-Rule (1) Clause Page No. 74 (d) of
Rule 15 - which speaks of scheme for
employment in Government or Government
Undertaking to the dependent or one member
of the family. If the intent of the legislature or
the Rule making authority was that a private job
be provided, it would have been mentioned
therein, therefore, this offer of a private job is
something which is not expected from the State
Government and absolutely uncalled for.

H. Section 15-A (6)(d) and Rule 15
(aa),(b) and (c) - The provision for relocation
of the family members exists in Section 15-A
(6)(d) and Rule 15 (aa),(b) and (c). The reason
we are directing the State to consider this
relocation instead of directing the family
members to approach the Special Court under
Section 15-A(6)(d) is that first and foremost it is
the State and its authorities who have to
consider such claim/request of the victims and
only thereafter, if the victims are aggrieved they
would approach the Special Court.

I. Section 21(2)(ii) read with Rule 11 of
the Rules 1995 - enjoins upon the State and
its Authorities specifically the District Magistrate
or the Sub-Divisional Magistrate or any other
Executive
Magistrate
to
make
necessary
arrangements for providing transport facilities or
reimbursement of full payment thereof to the
victims of atrocity etc., therefore, first and
foremost the State and its authorities have to
comply their statutory obligations in this regard
and thereafter, if the family members are still
aggrieved, they can approach the Court
concerned under Section 15-A(6)(b) of the Act,
1989.
(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajan Roy, J.)

1. Heard.

2. These proceedings were ordered to
be registered suo moto under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India taking cognizance
of certain incidents which took place on
14.09.2020 in District Hathras involving
the alleged rape and murder of a girl
belonging to a Scheduled Caste of 19 years
followed by her cremation in wee hours of
the night intervening 29/30.09.2020 which
appeared to be against the wishes of her
family members thereby raising important
questions pertaining to fundamental right to
a decent burial and role of State authorities
in this regard.

3. As regards criminal case pertaining
to the alleged rape and murder, monitoring
of
investigation/trial
is
also
being
undertaken by this Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India. In this regard,
certain orders have been passed by Hon'ble
the Supreme Court on 27.10.2020 in Writ
Petition (Criminal) No. 296 of 2020;
Satyama Dubey and others vs. Union of
India and others and other connected
petitions. The trial is still pending.

4. In these very proceedings the
victim's family has claimed employment
for one of its members i.e. the elder brother
in view of Item 46 of Schedule Annexure-I
which is referable to Rule 12(4) of the
1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995
(hereinafter referred to as 'Rules 1995') and
Section 15A of the Scheduled Castes and
the
Scheduled Tribes
(Prevention
of
Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred
as 'Act 1989'), and the assurance given to it
on 30.09.2020 by the Head of the State
which has been recorded in a document of
the same date. The family has also claimed
relocation as per the provisions of the Act
1989 considering the inimical condition in
its village.

5. The victim's family which belongs
to a Scheduled Caste filed an affidavit
dated
23.10.2020
inter
alia
seeking
relocation/rehabilitation outside the State of
Uttar
Pradesh
as
also
Government
employment to one member of the family.
Subsequently, additional affidavit dated
06.01.2021 was filed on behalf of the
victim's
family
seeking
inter
alia
employment to one of the brothers of the
victim on a Group 'C' post in the
Government and also seeking the benefits
prescribed at Item 46 of the Schedule
Annexure-I to the Rules, 1995.

6. Response to these affidavits have
been filed by the State which are on record.

Submissions
on
Behalf
of
the
Victim's Family:

7. In nutshell, the contention of Ms.
Seema Kushwaha, learned counsel for the
victim's family was that on 30.09.2020 the
Head of the State had given certain
assurances with regard to employment, etc.
to the victim's family. The monetary benefit
as promised has been extended but the
employment part has not been complied.
The assurances were reduced in writing and
were singed by the District Magistrate and
various other Public Authorities, therefore,
the State is under an obligation to provide
the benefits assured therein which are
referable to statutory provisions.

8. The submission of learned counsel
for the victim's family was that after the
unfortunate incident which took place on
14.09.2020
followed
by
the
illegal
cremation in the night of 29/30.09.2020, an
atmosphere of fear and insecurity has
gripped the family members who are nine
in number including three girls aged 7, 3
and
1
year
old
respectively.
The
demography of Village Boolgadhi is such
that there were only four Scheduled Castes
families in the village, rest being upper
castes and after the above incident, two of
the four families have migrated elsewhere
leaving only two families of which one is
the victim's family. The atmosphere is very
hostile. The victim's family has been
subjected to economic and social boycott.
Round the clock security by the CRPF
personnel has also thrown the family's life
haywire
as
movement
has
become
restricted. The father is no longer employed
after the incident. Likewise, the elder
brother who was employed in Ghaziabad is
also unemployed. The younger brother is
also
unemployed.
The
family
has
agricultural holding of only four bighas of
land and a house in the village comprising
two rooms, verandah, etc. Considering the
atmosphere prevailing in the village, in
spite of the CRPF personnel being posted
therein, it is not possible for the family to
lead a normal life as such they need to be
relocated/rehabilitated elsewhere so that
they may feel socially, and economically
secure.

9. Her contention was that the family
has relatives in Noida and Delhi, therefore,
if they are relocated/rehabilitated in Noida
7 All. Suo-moto Inre Right to Decent and Dignified Last Rites/Cremation Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.
1105
it would give them a proper atmosphere for
living a normal life far away from the place
of incident. The entire family wants to live
together and they would be secure in such
an environment at Noida having the
support of their peer group and relatives.
The accused belong to the upper caste
which is the dominant caste in Village
Boolgadhi, therefore, normal life for the
victim's family which belongs to the
Schedules Caste is not possible.

The offer of Sri Raju, learned Senior
Counsel appearing for the State of U.P.,
albeit after some persuasion by the Court,
for providing a house constructed by the
District Urban Development Agency within
the municipal limits of Hathras was turned
down by the victim's family on the ground
that living at Hathras is not an option
considering the aforesaid scenario. The
contention was that the State could not
prevent the crime being committed and on
account of the negligence of the said
authorities, life and liberty of the victim's
family has been compromised. The family
feels
highly
insecure,
socially,
economically,
mentally
and
psychologically. Children are unable to go
to school as the mother is afraid to send
them for studies in the vicinity of the
village or even nearby.

10. Learned counsel also referred to a
Mahapanchayat having been called by
Karni Sena an organization of upper caste
people in favour of the accused which has
further aggravated the situation and has
added to the fear of the victim's family
which belongs to the downtrodden class.

11. Learned counsel also referred to
another incident involving death of Vinay
Tiwari and Manish Gupta and that their
spouses were given employment in a Public
Undertaking, that too Class II job, apart
from Rs. 40.00 lakhs given to them, in
comparison to which, the victim's family
had only been provided Rs. 25.00 lakhs,
moreover,
no
employment
has
been
provided in spite of an assurance having
been given. She contended that the said
families were well-off economically and
socially yet they were given said benefits
whereas a downtrodden family in spite of
there being statutory backing under the Act
1989 and the Rules 1995 made thereunder,
has not been extended the benefits
prescribed in law and as were assured by
the Government itself on 30.09.2020. She
alleges discrimination and arbitrariness in
this regard which according to her was
painful for the family and displayed an
unnecessary adversarial attitude on the part
of the State against the poorest of the poor.

Submissions on Behalf of the State:

12. Sri S.V. Raju, learned Senior
Counsel assisted by Mr. Pranjal Krishna,
learned counsel appearing for the State of
U.P. submitted that the benefits prescribed
under Item 46 of the Schedule Annexure-I
to the Rules 1995 are not mandatory as is
evident from the use of word 'may' in
Column 3 of Item 46. It is a relief
additional to the other reliefs mentioned at
Items No. 1 to 45. He raised important
issues pertaining to the scope of Item 46 of
the said Schedule Annexure-I to the Rules
1995 and the meaning and purport of the
term 'family', 'atrocity' and use of the word
'may' therein in the light of the Act 1989
and Rules 1995 in support of his argument.
According to him employment referred in
Item 46 of Schedule Annexure-I to the
Rules 1995 was only with respect to
'dependents' of the victim or widow which
the family members were not. The word
'and' used in Clause (i) of Column 3 of Item
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
46 is conjunctive, not disjunctive. He
submitted that only needy persons could be
given the additional relief envisaged in
Item 46 and it cannot be claimed as a
matter of right. It is not supposed to be a
bounty. He also raised an issue as to
whether the brothers and sisters of the
victim would fall within the meaning of
legal heir under the provisions of the Hindu
Succession Act, 1956 and whether such a
wide definition of 'family' should be given
so as to include them also in the said
definition for the purpose of Item 46. What
if the married brother does not look after
the
family
after
being
provided
employment. The Act 1989 and the Rules
1995 framed thereunder do not speak of a
Government job. He also submitted that
negative parity/equality cannot be claimed
by the victim's family with Vinay Tiwari
and Manish Gupta' family.

13. The assurances recorded in the
minutes dated 30.09.2020 are contrary to
the provisions of Rules 1995 and are not
enforceable in a Court of law. He submitted
that provision of such employment to the
victim's family would not only violate the
statutory provisions but would also be
completely violative of public policy and
hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution
of India. He also submitted that an amount
of Rs. 25.00 lakhs given to the victim's
family was much more than what was
envisaged in Schedule Annexure-I to the
Rules 1995 at Items No. 1 to 45, therefore,
the State Government had been more than
fair to the victim's family.

14. The victim's family did not have
any indefeasible and enforceable right with
regard to employment. However, in the
same vein, he suggested that the State
Government
could
arrange
private
employment to one of the members of the
family,
however,
on
surprise
being
expressed by the Court as to how the State
will arrange private employment, the
learned counsel at the fag end of the
hearing on this issue submitted that after
conclusion of trial the State is agreeable to
consider the grant of employment to one
member of the family. This, of course, he
submitted was without prejudice to the
legal issues which he had raised as regards
the provision of the Act 1989 and the Rules
1995 and Schedule Annexure-I thereto.

15. He also submitted that it is not as
if the father and brother who were in
employment prior to the incident had been
removed from employment but a case
where they had voluntarily stopped going
for the job. The children could be provided
best education in a nearby school. As
regards the house, as already recorded, he
submitted that a house built by DUDA
within the municipal limits of District
Hathras can also be provided. However, he
was against the provision of a house, etc. to
the victim's family at Noida or outside
Hathras. He also submitted that the house
of the victim's family was a large one
having three rooms, verandah, etc. and the
same was not being shared by the uncle as
alleged by the counsel for the victim's
family.

16. He also submitted that the said
reliefs could only be given after atrocities
mentioned therein had been proved in trial
meaning thereby such benefits could only
be given after conclusion of trial and not
before.

17. Furthermore, he submitted that
these proceedings, being in public interest,
cannot be used by the victim's family for
redressal of their individual grievance.
Complicated factual issues are involved
7 All. Suo-moto Inre Right to Decent and Dignified Last Rites/Cremation Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.
1107
which cannot be seen under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, especially as it
would entail an inquiry regarding the
quantum of relief, if any, to be given.

18. In addition to it, he submitted that
the jurisdiction, if at all in this regard, is
with the Special Court under Section 15A
(6) of the Act 1989, therefore, this Court
should not consider this issue.

19. In support of his contention, Sri
Raju, learned Senior Counsel relied upon
the following decisions:

"1. Ram Pravesh Singh vs. State of
Bihar; (2006) 8 SCC 381

2. State of Bihar vs. Sachindra
Narayan; (2019) 3 SCC 803

3. State of Haryana vs. Mahabir
Vegetable Oils (P) Ltd.; (2011) SCC
OnLine SC 374

4. Excise Commr. vs. Issac Peter;
(1994) 4 SCC 104

5. Bannari Amman Sugars Ltd. vs.
CTO; (2005) 1 SCC 625

6. South-Eastern Coalfields Ltd. vs.
Prem Kumar Sharma; (2007) 14 SCC 508

7. V Sivamurthy vs. State of A.P.;
(2008) 13 SCC 730

8. SBI vs. Jaspal Kaur; (2007) 9 SCC
571

9. State of Jharkhand vs. Shiv
Karampal Sahu; (2009) 11 SCC 453

10. Auditor General of India vs. G.
Ananta Rajeswara Rao; (1994) 1 SCC
192"

Submissions on behalf of the Amicus
Curiae:

20. Learned Amicus, Sri J.N.
Mathur, learned Senior Counsel assisted
by Mr. Abhinav Bhattacharya invited the
attention of the Court to the wordings and
language used in various provisions of
the Act 1989 and the Rules 1995. He
submitted that the term 'victim' includes
the dependent and non-dependent. The
submission was that the victim's family is
covered by the provision contained in
Item 46 of the Schedule Annexure-I to
the Rules 1995 and the grant of
employment, etc. is not restricted only to
the dependents. There is no reason to give
a restrictive meaning to the term family
used therein. He submitted that the
assurance given on 30.09.2020 was
within the purview of the Act 1989 and
the
Rules
made
thereunder.
The
assurance/letter of the District Magistrate,
etc. is enforceable in law. It is hardest of
the
cases,
therefore,
whatever
benefit/relief can be given, should be
given by the Court. Alternative remedy is
not an absolute bar in this regard.

He
further
submitted
that
these
proceedings are suo moto proceedings
under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India in public interest considering the fact
that the victim and her family belong to
downtrodden Schedule Castes and are the
poorest of the poor. It is not a case where
the
proceedings
are
transcribed
and
prescribed on written pleadings and reliefs
filed by the petitioner. It is also not the case
that the relief being sought by the victim's
family is alien to the subject matter in
issue. In fact, it is an offshoot of an incident
which led to cognizance being taken by this
Court suo moto and, as there is statutory
backing to the said reliefs, therefore, it can
very well be considered in these very
proceedings and there is no reason as to
why the victim's family which already does
not have sufficient means to sustain itself
should be made to initiate separate
proceedings in a Court of law, especially
considering their social, educational and
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
economic status. This issue should not be
treated as an adversarial issue by the State.

21. According to him, the additional
reliefs envisaged at Item 46 of the Schedule
are for victims of atrocities as mentioned in
column. The family members are victims
within the meaning of Section 2(ec) of the
Act 1989, therefore, they are entitled to
employment and also for relocation. The
word 'and' used in Clause (i) of Column 3
of Item 46 if read as conjunctive it will
defeat the intent of the provision. As
regards Schedule Annexure-I, he submitted
that it refers to the minimum amount
payable under various heads from Items
No. 1 to 45, therefore, Rs. 25.00 lakhs
given by the State Government is not more
than what is envisaged in the said provision
and it was permissible for the State
Government to give the said amount and
even more and the submission of Sri Raju
to the contrary is incorrect.

22. In support of his contention Sri
Mathur relies upon the following decisions:

"1. Indore Development Authority
(LAPSE-5J.) vs. Manoharlal; (2020) 8
SCC 129

2. Ishwar Singh vs. State of U.P.; AIR
1968 SC 1450

3. Samee Khan vs. Bindu Khan;
(1998) 7 SCC 59

4. Mobilox Innovations (P) Ltd vs.
Kirusa Software (P) Ltd.; (2018) 1 SCC
353

5. Gujrat Urja Vikash Nigam Ltd. vs.
Essar Power Ltd.; (2008) 4 SCC 755

6. Joint Director of Mines Safety vs.
Tandur and Nayandgi Stone quarries (P)
Ltd.; (1997) 3 SCC 208

7. Maharshi Mahesh Yogi Vedic
Vishwavidyalaya vs. State of M.P. and
Ors.; (2013) 15 SCC 677

8. Sanjay Dutt vs. State; (1994) 5
SCC 410

9. Jindal Stainless Ltd. & Ors. vs.
State of Haryana and Ors; (2017) 12 SCC
1

10. Sukhnandan vs. Suraj Bali and
Ors.; AIR 1541 All 119

11. The Food Inspector, Trichur
Municipality, Trichur vs. O.D. Paul and
Ors; AIR 1965 Ker 96

12. Reg. vs. Oakes; (1959) 2 Q.B.
350"

Discussions and Analysis:

23. Before delving into the merits of
the issues involved we deem it proper to
decide the preliminary objections raised on
behalf of the State.

24. As regards the objection of Sri
Raju that these proceedings being in public
interest, therefore, the victim's family
cannot raise individual grievances herein
for seeking employment, etc. under the Act
1989 and that they should raise these
grievances separately, the same is not
acceptable for the reason the victim's
family belongs to downtrodden class of
society. They belong to the Scheduled
Caste. The very reason this Court took
cognizance of the matter involving alleged
rape, murder and thereafter cremation of
the victim in the mid of the night in the
circumstances already dealt with in the
earlier orders of this Court was on account
of the fact that the victim and her family
belong to downtrodden class of the society
i.e. they were from the socially and
economically weaker section of the society,
poorest of the poor, who have been given
certain protections by the Constitution and
also statutorily by the Act 1989 and such
persons are often not in a position to raise
their grievance or assert their rights for
7 All. Suo-moto Inre Right to Decent and Dignified Last Rites/Cremation Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.
1109
various
reasons
including
their
unawareness and their social, educational
and economic status.

In this case Ms. Seema Kushwaha has
come forward to represent them pro bono
as was specifically stated by her on a query
being put by the Court. We have also
appointed an Amicus for our assistance and
also to protect the interest of the victim's
family as per law.

Moreover, it is not as if the relief
being claimed herein during pendency of
these proceedings and the trial pertaining to
the alleged criminal offence before the
Court below is alien to the subject matter in
issue involved herein. It is an offshoot of
the crime committed. In fact, the Act 1989
has been promulgated by the Parliament of
India to prevent the commission of offence
of atrocities against the members of the
Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled
Tribes, to provide for Special Courts and
exclusive Special Courts for the trial of
such offences and for the relief and
rehabilitation of the victim of such
persons and for matters connected
therewith and incidental thereto. The
relief of employment and rehabilitation,
etc. being claimed by the victim's family
are in terms of the the Act 1989 and the
Rules 1995. These reliefs are consequential
to the incident which took place involving
the alleged rape and murder of the victim
followed by her cremation in the mid of the
night, therefore, it is not a matter
unconnected with the proceedings which
are pending before us. We are also
monitoring the trial being conducted in this
regard by the Court below.

Considering the subject matter it
cannot be said that this is purely an
individual grievance as the relief sought is
one which is claimed by the victim's family
as being permissible and which the State is
obliged to provide to them under the Act
1989 and the Rules made thereunder. They
are seeking constitutional and statutory
protections and reliefs as perceived by
them, therefore, we do not see any reason
as to why a downtrodden family which
does not have any member in employment,
as of now, a fact which is not in dispute,
and which has lost a member and is in
distress, should be made to run from pillar
to post or for that matter should be
compelled
to
initiate
separate
legal
proceedings
involving
unnecessary
expenses and the mental stress which goes
with such litigation. We do not see as to
why in these very proceedings we should
not consider such relief as claimed, whether
they are permissible under the Constitution
and the Act 1989 and the Rules made
thereunder, etc. Rights of the downtrodden
class especially Scheduled Castes who are
victims under the Act 1989, can and should
be enforced and protected in these
proceedings.

25. It is also necessary to point out that
these proceedings have not been drawn on a
petition filed with specific pleadings, grounds
and reliefs; rather suo moto cognizance has
been taken by this Court as already referred in
our earlier orders in public interest, considering
the social, educational and economic status of
the victim and her family and the incident,
therefore, this is not a matter which is
circumscribed by pleadings and reliefs claimed
in a written and drafted petition, which is not to
say that we can consider any or every issue
unrelated to the incident. In fact, as already
stated hereinabove, this is an issue which is an
offshoot of the issues already involved in the
proceedings.
We
accordingly
reject
the
contention of Sri Raju to the contrary.

26. As regards other objection of Sri
Raju that this issue should be raised by the
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
victim's family before the Special Court
which is trying the criminal offence relating
to the victim, we are of the opinion that no
doubt as per Section 15A (6) of the Act
1989, Special Court or the Exclusive
Special Court trying a case under this Act is
required
to
provide
to
victim,
his
dependent,
informant
or
witnesses,
complete protection to secure the ends of
justice; the travelling and maintenance
expenses during investigation, inquiry and
trial; the social-economic rehabilitation
during investigation, inquiry and trial; and
relocation, but, we cannot be unmindful of
the fact that considering the importance of
the issues, cognizance of which has been
taken by this Court and suo moto
proceedings have been registered, we have
already granted protection to the victim's
family instead of making them run from
pillar to post and even Hon'ble the Supreme
Court has vide its order dated 27.10.2020
observed/directed that we may monitor the
criminal trial also.

Moreover, considering the objections
which have been raised by Sri Raju some
of which are of a legal nature touching
upon the object and scope of the Act 1989,
especially the scope of various provisions
contained therein such as Section 15A and
Item 46 of the Schedule Annexure-I to the
Rules 1995 their purport and meaning, we
are of the opinion that these legal issues
involve
interpretation
of
statutory
provisions, therefore, this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is
best suited to consider these aspects of the
matter, and which the Special Court may
not be suited for.

Sri Raju has touched upon various
aspects such as the meaning to be given to
the term 'family' used in Item 46 of
Schedule Annexure-I to the Rules 1995, the
meaning of the term 'may' 'atrocities' used
therein, the meaning of the term 'dependent'
contained in Section 2 (bb), meaning of the
word 'victim' in Section 2(ec), scope of
Item 46 Schedule Annexure-I to the Rules
1995, etc. to contend that, in fact, the
brothers and sisters would not fall within
the definition of victim nor within the
meaning of the term family and they are
not entitled to the benefits envisaged in
Item 46 of the Schedule Annexure-I
referred hereinabove.

Furthermore, he has contended that the
said provision is not enforceable in law in
the sense that it is not mandatory, therefore,
the meaning, purport and scope of all these
provisions have to be considered by this
Court, and the Special Court, in our
opinion, would not be in a position to do
so, therefore, it is our constitutional
obligation to consider and, if necessary,
interpret
the
provisions
referred
hereinabove.

Moreover, the relief claimed herein by
the victim's family is based on an assurance
dated 30.09.2020 which has been reduced
in writing and signed by various authorities
including Public Authorities and in this
context also Sri Raju contends that the said
assurance has no force in law and, in fact, it
is contrary to the Act 1989 and the Rules
1995 and is not enforceable, therefore, this
is an aspect which has to be considered by
the High Court and the Special Court
would not be suited to do so considering
the magnitude and importance of the issue
involved. How far we can interfere in the
matter is a separate issue which we will
consider hereinafter. Subject to this, we
reject this contention of Sri Raju.

27. The next objection raised by Sri
Raju was that the plea raised herein
involves
complicated
and
disputed
questions of fact which may involve a
roving inquiry, especially as to the extent of
7 All. Suo-moto Inre Right to Decent and Dignified Last Rites/Cremation Vs. State of U.P. &
Ors.
1111
relief to be given to the victim's family,
therefore, the High Court under Article 226
of the Constitution of India is not suited for
such an exercise and should desist from
considering these pleas.

From the records, there are certain
undisputed facts which are as under:

(i) The CBI has filed a charge-sheet
against the accused under Sections 302, 376,
376A, 376D IPC and under Section 3(2)(v)
of the Act 1989 before the Trial Court relating
to the incident of rape, etc. of the victim.

(ii) As on date none of the family
members are employed. In fact, they have not
been in employment for quite sometime after
the incident.

(iii) They have only about four bighas of
land and a house in their village which
according to them is jointly owned by
victim's family and the uncles, though as per
the State the uncles are not residing therein.

(iv) There are nine members in the
victim's family three of whom are girl
children aged about 7, 3 and 1 year and the
child who is seven years old is unable to go to
school.

(v) There is an assurance on record
dated 30.09.2020 under which certain
benefits and facilities were to be provided to
the victim's family consequent to a meeting
held between them and the de facto Head of
the State. The minutes of the meeting and the
assurances have been recorded in a document
on record and signed by various authorities
including
the
District
Magistrate,
etc.
Whether this is enforceable or not is another
matter which shall be considered hereinafter,
but the fact that there is a document which
had been prepared, is not in dispute.

(vi) It is also a fact that under the
provisions of the Act 1989 and the Rules
1995 certain reliefs and rehabilitation
including employment measures have been
envisaged for being provided to the victim,
his or her dependent, informant, witnesses
and family members.

28. In view of the aforesaid, as of
now, we do not see any such intricate and
complex
factual
issues
involved
in
considering the plea of the victim's family
for employment, etc., however, if at any
stage, we do find that complicated factual
questions are involved, then we can
certainly consider this aspect of the matter
as to how far we are required to exercise
our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, but we do not find
any reason to throw out the plea at the
threshold without any consideration of the
issues involved, especially in view of the
legal issues involved herein as already
mentioned above.

Analysis of Relevant Provisions of
Act 1989

29. Before we proceed any further to
consider the legal issues raised by Sri Raju,
learned Senior counsel for the State, it will
be apposite to take a glance at the scheme
and relevant provisions of the Act 1989 and
the Rules 1995.

30. As per the statement of Objects
and Reasons of the Act 1989 noticing an
increase
in
the
disturbing
trend
of
commission of certain atrocities including
rape etc. of a woman belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes, as,
the existing laws like the Protection of
Civil Rights Act, 1955 and the normal
provisions of the Indian Penal Code were
found to be inadequate to check these
crimes a special legislation to check and
deter
crimes/atrocities
against
them
committed by non-Scheduled Castes and
non-Scheduled Tribes was found to be
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
necessary. It is also mentioned that despite
various measures to improve socialeconomic conditions of the Scheduled
Caste and Scheduled Tribes, they remain
vulnerable. They were denied number of
civil rights and were subjected to various
offences, indignities, humiliations and
harassment and increase in the disturbance.
It was also proposed to enjoin upon the
States and Union Territories to take specific
preventive and punitive measures to protect
the Scheduled Castes and Schedule Tribes
from being victimized and where atrocities
were committed, to provide adequate relief
and assistance to rehabilitate them. The Act
1989 seeks to achieve the above Objects.

31.