[Hathras Gang Rape] Allahabad High Court directs State to consider employment of one family member, relocation of family

The Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court on Tuesday directed the Uttar Pradesh (UP) government to consider granting employment to one family member of the Hathras gang rape victim, and relocating the family to another part of the State keeping in mind their social and economic rehabilitation [Suo-Moto Inre Right To Decent And Dignified Last Rites/Cremation v State]..A bench of Justices Rajan Roy and Jaspreet Singh passed the judgment in a suo moto case initiated by the Court after it took cognizance of the Hathras gang rape and murder of a girl belonging to a Scheduled Caste in September 2020 and her cremation in the wee hours of the night by State authorities. stating that the High Court was best suited to consider these aspects, since the legal issues involved interpretation of statutory provisions. "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", recorded the bench. .Submissions by victim's family.The family submitted that the head of the State had provided an assurance regarding employment to them, and while the promised monetary benefit was received by them, the promise of employment remained unfulfilled. They submitted that the State was under an obligation to provide benefits assured.It was also pointed out that none of the members of the family were employed, particularly since the accused in the case were upper-caste and the family belonging to a scheduled caste could not lead a normal life. It was highlighted that due to the insecurity being felt, the children could not go to school. .Submissions by State.The state argued that employment under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995 only needy people could be given additional relief. The counsel emphasised that it was not supposed to be a bounty.Another issue as to whether brothers and sisters of the victim would be legal heirs, and whether such a wide definition of 'family' should be given was raised.In this regard it was submitted that despite the assurance earlier given, the victim's family did not have any indefeasible and enforceable right with regard to employment.The counsel also opposed the prayer seeking relocation outside Hathras. It was submitted that such reliefs could only be given after the alleged atrocities were proven in trial. Further, it was stated that in a public interest proceeding, the victim's family could not claim redressal of their individual grievance, since it involved complicated factual issues. .Submissions by amicus curiae.The amicus appointed to assist the court, however, underscored that the term 'victim' under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and Rules included dependents and non-dependents.Therefore, the stand taken was that the grant of employment was not restricted only to the dependents and there was no reason to give a restrictive meaning to the term 'family'.Additionally, it was stated that the relief sought could be considered by the court since it was not as though the relief was alien to the subject matter in issue..Findings of the court.The court rejected the State's argument that the family's individual grievances could not be heard for the reason the victim's family belonged to a downtrodden class of society. It was noted that the relief being claimed was an offshoot of the crime committed.Further, the court stressed that the Act was promulgated to prevent the commission of offence of atrocities against the members of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes."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.".Further, the bench expressed its disinclination to make the family instead of making them run from pillar to post. Going on to find that there were no intricate and complex factual issues, the court decided to consider the plea..With regard to the prayer of employment it was found that even without the State's assurance, the family members were entitled to employment. "There is no reason why we should give a restrictive meaning to the term 'relatives' so as to oust brothers and sisters from its purview..," the court said.It was clarified that in the event of ambiguity an interpretation advancing the object of the Act should be preferred, and not one which defeats the object of the provisions..While considering the facts of the case, it was observed that the family was in need of employment, and the promise by the State was not based on whims or fancies. "This is especially as the Act 1989 is itself a legislative measure to protect the rights and the interest of the poorest of poor, the downtrodden, who belong to Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe."With this discussion, the State was directed to provide a job suitable to the qualifications of a family member within three months."We accordingly direct the State Government to consider employment of one of the family member.. This shall be done within three months from the date of receipt of this order.".In relation to the plea seeking relocation, the division bench considered the social and economic condition of the victim’s family, as well as the mental state in which the family members claimed to be.It was noted that after the incident, considering the limelight, one could very well imagine that it would not be easy for the family to continue to live in the village."We are of the opinion that the State should consider their relocation to any other place within the State outside Hathras keeping in mind their social and economic rehabilitation and also the educational needs of the children," it was thus, held.This decision was directed to be taken within six months..Advocates Abhinav Bhattacharya, Ajit Singh, Anjani Kumar Mishra, Ashish Kumar Agarwal, Atul K Singh, Atul Kumar Singh, Digvijay Singh Yadav, Jaideep Narain Mathur Ac, Nadeem Murtaza, Onkar Singh, Pradeep Kumar Singh, Seema Kushwaha and Sharad Bhatnagar appeared for the petitioners. Senior Advocate SV Raju, Advocates Anurag Kumar Singh, Ashok Shukla, Dr Ravi Kumar Mishra, Manjusha, Pranjal Krishna and Satyaveer Singh appeared for the respondents. Senior Advocate JN Mathur was appointed the Amicus Curiae and was assisted by Advocate Abhinav Bhattacharya..[Read Judgment]