The Allahabad High Court has directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to conduct a broad inquiry into the way financial relief under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 and the 1995 Rules is claimed and disbursed across the State.
The direction came after the Court took note of records showing that advocate Santosh Kumar Dohrey and his family members had received a cumulative ₹23,36,250 in relief or financial assistance in different criminal cases. The State also informed the Court that around 10 to 12 further cases involving claims for relief were pending before the concerned District Welfare Committee.
The Court, however, made it clear that repeated criminal cases and relief claims, by themselves, cannot be treated as proof of misuse.
Background of the Case
The directions were issued while hearing Criminal Appeal No. 10745 of 2024, Arvind Kumar and 2 others v. State of U.P. and 2 others, along with connected Criminal Appeal No. 10484 of 2024 filed by Santosh Kumar Dohrey.
The appeals challenged orders of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act, Jhansi, which had rejected applications seeking payment of the balance relief amount. The investigating officer had initially proposed ₹2 lakh for each victim under Item 41 of the Schedule to Rule 12(4) of the 1995 Rules. Under the prescribed structure, 25% is payable at the FIR stage, 50% when the charge-sheet is sent to court and the remaining 25% upon conviction.
The Special Judge had relied on a subsequent assessment by the District Level Committee, which had fixed the relief at ₹1 lakh instead of ₹2 lakh, with ₹75,000 already paid to each victim.
Court's Observation
Justice Santosh Rai held that the Special Judge had proceeded on an erroneous understanding of Rule 12(7). The provision allows the Special Court to examine whether relief was paid on time, whether the amount was adequate, or whether only part of the amount was paid. Where necessary, the Court can direct payment of the balance.
"Recurrent registration of criminal cases followed by claims for relief, without more, does not by itself establish misuse; nonetheless, the scale and frequency disclosed in the present proceedings are such that they cannot be left unexamined, lest the object of the beneficent legislation be defeated by its exploitation."
The Court said the relief scheme is intended to protect and rehabilitate genuine victims and that its integrity must be safeguarded. It therefore directed the District Magistrate, Jhansi, in coordination with the Senior Superintendent of Police, to conduct a fair and time-bound inquiry into the criminal cases and relief amounts involving Dohrey and his family. The inquiry must be completed within three months from production of the certified copy of the judgment.
Decision
The High Court also directed the Uttar Pradesh Government to undertake a broad-based inquiry across the State and develop an effective regulatory and supervisory system in every district for claims under the SC/ST Act, particularly where repeated claims are made by the same persons or their family members.
At the same time, the Court clarified that its observations did not decide the entitlement of Dohrey or any victim to relief. That question must be independently determined by the District Level Committee.
On the original compensation dispute, the High Court set aside the Special Judge's orders and remitted both applications for fresh consideration. The Special Judge was directed to examine the nature and ingredients of the offences and determine the applicable Schedule entry rather than relying mechanically on the sections mentioned in the charge-sheet. The District Welfare Committee must then pass a reasoned order on whether the applicable compensation is ₹1 lakh or ₹2 lakh.
The appeals were accordingly disposed of.
