Supreme Court directs NALSA to draft framework on Victim Compensation Scheme

The Supreme Court today asked the National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) to draft a model framework for release of funds under the Victim Compensation Scheme by 31 December, 2017..The Bench of Justices Madan Lokur and Deepak Gupta was hearing a plea filed by Senior Advocate Indira Jaising seeking details of compensation and other measures undertaken by states under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure..The initial focus of the framework would be to release funds to victims of sexual offences and acid attacks. The Court has also expressed its desire that the rules should have some uniformity and should not be generalized..Jaising, who is also Amicus Curiae in the matter, submitted that in order to co-operate with the police, the state government must ensure victim protection, because in many cases, the victim succumbs to the pressure of the accused and turns hostile..It was her submission that the existing Scheme lacks clarity. It was also submitted that there are a range of other issues involved, such as media reporting in cases involving rape victims, framework for public transportation, including app-based platforms, which should be heard by the Court..It was brought to the notice of the Court that app-based service providers are not able to reach out to any official for seeking redressal, and that causes a lot of problems..The Bench will address the issue on regulatory framework for public transportation, including app-based platforms, on December 7, 2017..The Court has also directed the Chandigarh administration to sanction an amount of Rs. 50 lakhs to the State Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh by November 30..On the last date of hearing, Jaising argued that actual disbursement of compensation money was not happening. Further, she also submitted that due to the non-uniformity in the schemes framed by different states, there is big difference in the money awarded to rape victims in different states..She further submitted that the compensation was not being disbursed till the conviction of the accused, thereby defeating the object of the victim compensation scheme.