NLU-D student files petition for revocation of illegal bus permits, establishment of Criminal Injuries Compensation Board

On January 11, 2013, a Division Bench of Justices KS Radhakrishnan and Dipak Misra issued notice in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by a student of the National Law University, Delhi. The petition has sought to draw the Court’s attention to the manner in which private buses operate in and around the National Capital Region. The petition has also sought the creation of a Criminal Injuries Compensation Board (CICB) for offences such as that of rape..The petition has been filed by Nipun Saxena who is currently studying at NLU-Delhi. The reliefs sought by the Petitioner includes revocation of licenses of those permit holders who are in violation of the Motor Vehicles Act, an enquiry into the “antecedents” of such drivers/license holders, examine the validity of the “two finger” test as a medical procedure, and the creation of guidelines for the “manner in which medico-legal assistance” is provided to rape victims. Lastly, the petition urges for the creation of Fast Track Courts to specifically deal with cases involving the offence of rape..Even though the petition received considerable media attention due to the remarks made in open court, it is the demand for the establishment for a CICB which might prove to be the most important factor of the petition. As mentioned in a petition, in Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India and Ors [(1995) 1 SCC 14], the Supreme Court had directed that a scheme for compensating rape victims be prepared and that the Union government implement the said scheme at the earliest..Speaking to Bar & Bench, Nipun Saxena said that in the immediate aftermath of the incident on December 16, 2012, “everyone was blaming the police: However, Saxena was, “more interested in the manner in which [private] bus permits were being granted. But for the negligence of the transport authority, [the incident] may very well have not taken place.”.With respect to the CICB, Saxena said that he first read the judgment in his second year, while studying for the Victimology course. He remembered being disconcerted by the fact a scheme for compensation had not yet been implemented. And this is one of the primary reasons for filing the petition. “Currently a victim has to approach the High Court or the Supreme Court for compensation. In fact, [compensation] should be a matter of right.”