Manodhairya scheme: Victims’ compensation may be recovered

The Manodhairya scheme underwent a series of revisions in December 2017. (Representational Image)

Victims of rape, sexual abuse and acid attacks who avail of the Maharashtra government’s compensation scheme, Manodhairya, will now face proceedings for recovery of the compensation awarded to them if it is found that “any relevant fact” shared during the inquiry was false.

This clause is part of guidelines issued by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority in February, based on which the District Legal Services Authority in each district has begun implementing the scheme from last month. Victims are also being informed that if they turn “deliberately hostile” before the court, the compensation granted to them will be recovered from them under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. Under the code, recovery can be made from victims or their guardians through attachment of property or seizure, if the money is not returned.

The Manodhairya scheme underwent a series of revisions in December 2017. Besides the clause on recovery of the compensation sum, there are also additional documents to be submitted to avail the scheme, including the victim’s statement recorded before a magistrate, a clause that has already begun to cause delays in accessing compensation.

In addition, survivors are now also being asked to sign an undertaking promising to refund the compensation under Manodhairya — either part or full — if the trial court orders the convict to pay compensation to the victim. “I am aware that the first charge/duty to compensate me for loss or injury or rehabilitation is that on the convict and upon receipt of compensation from the convict, I am supposed to refund the compensation received from this Authority under the Scheme, I shall have no objection in case the amount supposed to be refunded by me in future is obtained by this Authority directly from my account/FDR opened/prepared at the time of disbursal of compensation under the Scheme,” the undertaking says.

Activists and lawyers say some of these revisions are insensitive, and will likely lead to delays and hurdles in victims’ ability to receive the compensation sum. Others said the state’s responsibility to compensate a victim cannot be seen on par with that of the accused and, therefore, seeking such a refund will only add to the burden on the victim.

“The compensation amount is given as the state’s responsibility towards the victim. Any court directing an accused to pay compensation is separate from this responsibility. Accused may even prefer to spend extra term in prison if they cannot afford to pay. To expect the victim to engage in this paperwork after the court has passed an order, even if it takes years, will only add to her difficulties,” said Persis Sidhva, women rights advocate and programme manager of RAHAT, a support programme for victims at Majlis Legal Centre.

Another major change in the scheme is that while interim relief will be given within seven days, final relief will be given within a month of the victim’s deposition before the court. If it takes more than a year for the victim’s deposition, then she will be paid the compensation within a year. In the previous scheme, the entire amount was given at the same time without any correlation on the victim’s deposition or the outcome in court.

The new guidelines also allow the panel implementing the scheme to reject a claim, a provision that did not exist in the previous scheme. The Board may call upon any evidence or document, including asking the victim to come and depose before the Board, before rejecting her claim. Activists say that this amounts to the victim being asked to relive her trauma for the third or fourth time before an authority — after the police, magistrate, trial court and, in case of children, the Child Welfare Committee.

Over four months after she was raped in March, a four-year-old victim in suburban Mumbai has been directed to appear before the District Legal Services Authority twice already. The child appeared both times, but her mother remains uncertain regarding the compensation she was entitled to receive. Under the previous scheme, the compensation could be claimed immediately after the FIR.

A member of the DLSA panel in Mumbai said that based on these guidelines issued by the Maharashtra State Legal Services Authority, the Board has begun calling victims and explaining these rules including regarding false information, return of money and rejection of claims.

In 2013, the Maharashtra government had issued a Government Resolution (GR) to launch its victim compensation scheme, Manodhairya. On August 1, 2017, the scheme was revised through another GR after the Bombay High Court directed the government to increase the compensation amount awarded to victims. The August GR had done away with the six-member District Criminal Injuries Relief and Rehabilitation Board headed by the district collector, which implemented the scheme, and made the DLSA responsible for the same. It also made changes including setting a time period of three months within which the paperwork had to be completed or the compensation was to be returned.

A Public Interest Litigation filed before the High Court, however, pointed towards the changes made to the scheme, stating that they made accessing compensation difficult. The court then directed for a committee led by a High Court judge to look into the shortcomings of the scheme and a new scheme was issued on December 30, 2017 by the Woman and Child Development department based on the suggestions of the committee.

Last month, the Supreme Court, which was hearing a petition on Model Rules for Victim Compensation for sexual offences and acid attacks in states across the country, gave its nod for the ‘compensation scheme for women victims/survivors of sexual assault/other crimes’ formulated by a nine-member team appointed by the National Legal Services Authority.

This scheme, to be implemented by states and Union territories, does not require submission of the victim’s statement, does not have provisions for rejection of a claim and directs for an inquiry to be completed for final compensation to be granted within 60 days, without any correlation to the victim’s deposition in court. A DLSA member said that the Supreme Court-approved scheme has been circulated to the district Boards and the state scheme will be implemented in consonance with it. In case of contradictions, clarity will be sought with MALSA, the member said.