Chapter 3: Challenges in Implementation and Accessibility

While the country has even put in place something of a statutory scheme and even used judicial
activism for victim compensation in India, in practice, the victim compensation schemes face
structural, procedural, and socio-economic challenges. This chapter critically analyzes the
barriers arising from various aspects denying free access to victim compensation: delay in
administration, inter-state disparity in amounts awarded, lack of consistency in judicial
discretion, and lack of awareness among victim communities, especially the marginalized and
vulnerable. The discussion further considers systemic issues of poor legal aid and bad
coordination among stakeholders (including police, courts, and DLSAs), with intersectional
marginalization affecting SC/STs, women, LGBTQ+, and religious minorities. Through
empirical data, comparative analyses, and case illustrations, the chapter aims to premise the
pressing gaps in need of reform so victim compensation can be truly accessible and fair.

3.1. Administrative and Procedural Bottlenecks

The working of any legal arrangement depends on the success it can claim because of the manner
in which it is implemented and administered. There are some serious administrative and
procedural bottlenecks that plague the implementation of victim compensation schemes in India
hindering the timely and just relief to victims of crime. These bottlenecks include certain delays
in applying for compensation, lack of coordination between important stakeholders like the
police, the District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs), and the judiciary. 1 Such inefficiencies
defeat the purpose for which compensatory justice is sought, thus leading to increased
unwarranted suffering of an already vulnerable and marginalized category of victims.

3.1.1. Delays in Processing Applications

Victims need to receive the compensation promptly because compensation provides sustenance
to victims and also recognizes, by the State, that suffering was meted out upon them. Against this
backdrop, a number of social and legal researchers, including media reports, allege wrongful

1 Nathan Rehn et al., Justice Without Delay: Recommendations for Legal and Institutional Reforms in the
Indian Courts, Jindal Global Legal Research Paper No. 4 (2011).
delays to have become the modus operandi of denials concerning victim compensation
applications under the central schemes as well as various state-specific schemes. Procedural
delay starts with registering the FIR and goes on through documentation, verification, scrutiny,
and ultimately disbursement.2

Victim compensation schemes that mostly fall under Section 357A of Criminal Procedure Code,
1973, provide that compensation shall be claimed either by the court while trying the offender or
by the DLSAs/SLSAs where either the offender is untraceable or the trial ends in acquittal. At
each step, major delays creep into the process. For instance, victims are made to wait for weeks,
sometimes even months, just for their FIRs to get registered or medical reports submitted-these
very documents being the prerequisites for lodging compensation claims.

All avenues for delaying the process are also created systematically and mainly due to lack of
manpower in DLSAs and absence of a standard operating procedure. Very often, in most cases
even though the courts have held that the compensation can and should be granted at interim
stages, DLSAs wait for the trial to be completed before commencing on compensation matters.
For example, in Laxmi v. Union of India, the Supreme Court declared compensation should be
granted in a timely manner to acid-attack victims and, therefore, commanded that such payments
be made on an interim basis. Unfortunately, most of the states are still lagging in
implementation.3

According to the NALSA report of 2020, less than 30% of eligible victims were disbursed
compensation under victim compensation schemes within the stipulated time period of two
months.4 Nearly in every State, victims have to pursue their compensation on several occasions -
mostly through their lawyers. These procedural delays usually coerce the victims into dropping
out from, or abandoning entirely, the process, which defeats the ultimate goal of victim-centred
justice.

2 Harsh Mishra & Shikhar Verma, Indian Justice Report: Vanishing Hope for Welfare State, 4 J. Const. L.
& Juris. 36 (2021).
3 Shruti Vidyasagar, Shruthi Naik & Harish Narasappa, Justice Frustrated: The Systemic Impact of
Delays in Indian Courts(Bloomsbury Publishing 2020).
4 National Legal Services Authority, R/O Victim Compensation Schemes Report: April 2019 – March
2020 (2020), [Link]
The dearth of any accountability process for holding officials responsible for such delays
remains the foremost barrier. Some of the state legal service authorities have even set up online
tracking systems, but these have largely gone unused because they were plagued by technical
glitches. The staff has not been trained properly, and the victims lack the digital literacy to make
use of the tracking systems.

3.1.2. Lack of Coordination Between Police, DLSAs, and Courts

The coordination between law enforcement agencies, the DLSAs, and judiciary is required for
smooth processing of victim compensation claims. However, from the viewpoints of institutional
fragmentation and poor inter-agency coordinated communication, the compensation schemes for
victims are at present severely limited.

One of the most pressing concerns is that police authorities do not inform the victims about their
right to compensation. Section 357A(4) CrPC5 permits the victims to themselves approach the
DLSA/SLSA for compensation, but with very few exceptions, investigating officers do not
communicate about this provision. The Supreme Court, in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India 6, had
stressed on the need for victims, especially minors and survivors of sexual offences, to be
assisted on a proactive basis. Despite this pronouncement, police officers at the field level have
disregarded the instructions, either by refusing to refer eligible victims to legal services
authorities or denying them the provision of necessary documents such as charge sheets or
medical reports. 7

The disconnect continues when cases get filed in court. Sometimes, Trial Courts under Section
357A(2) CrPC would pass orders for compensation, but mostly would not do so for reasons of
ignorance, heavy workload, or uncertainty over the procedures. At other times, the Trial Court
wherein criminal proceedings are pending, refers the compensation matter back to the DLSA for
consideration, without making any recommendation thereon, further perpetuating the delay in
awarding relief.

5 Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, (2019) 9 S.C.C. 703 (India).

6 Code of Criminal Procedure, § 357A(4) (India, 1973).
7 Milendra Singh & Saman Narayan Upadhyay, Digitization of Legal Aid Services and Criminal Justice to
the Detainees in India, 10 Law & World 37 (2024)
One big factor for the application backlog on DLSA is understaffing and deficient infrastructure.
Research by the Centre For Social Justice in Gujarat found that most of the DLSAs lacked duly
trained officers for compensation of victims. Hence cases get stricken off even on technical
grounds without affording victims an opportunity to cure defects.

The lack of a centralised database for tracking victim compensation claims is yet another factor
that complicates the issue. The lack of integration between police records, court case
information, and DLSA files would more often than not create an environment where
information is misplaced or duplicated. For instance, there are documented instances where
courts issued compensation orders without informing the DLSA, which in turn failed to disburse
compensation. Similarly, complaints filed with the police were not forwarded to the concerned
legal services authority in time. 8

Such a siloed system taints the victim experience. The victim might begin to be asked to recount
their traumatic story several times before different committees; they might have to repeat
documentation; and they will be fed-up by seemingly never-ending timelines. This re-
victimization dissuades victims from seeking justice or associating with state support
mechanisms.9

3.1.3. Impact on Justice Delivery and Victim Rehabilitation

Administrative and procedural hurdles put the rights of victims at risk as well as the goal of
compensation; the delay in providing financial assistance impedes the recovery of those who
suffer bodily injuries, sexual assaults, or death of a family member. The objectives of
compensation, other than offering symbolic contraposition, should also entail providing some
financial help towards treatment, income loss, counseling, and rehabilitation. Still, victims
already face long delays in filing compensation claims that might only end up submerging the
victims further into poverty and social exclusion in their rural and marginalized communities,
where legal aid or financial aid would already be difficult to find. Victims themselves bear extra

8 Jo Wells, Interprofessional Collaboration in Criminal Justice Liaison and Diversion Schemes: An

Analysis of Partnership Practice in an English Police Custody Suite (Ph.D. dissertation, Bournemouth
Univ. 2023)
9 Aryan Mishra, The Role of Judiciary in Protection of Undertrials, Int’l J. Legal Sci. & Mgmt. 4 (2023).
costs: they pay for private litigants, for bribing officials, or for repeated visits to government
offices-another level of trauma.10

Even worse, in the public views, these are barriers to justice. If the victim believes the criminal
justice system cannot even fulfill its promises of compensation, it is bound to discourage them
from coming forward or assisting in legal proceedings. The ramifications would become broader
still, rippling through not only the single cases but the whole domain of law enforcement and
social justice.

3.1.4. Recommendations and Way Forward

To address the problems mentioned above, a few structural and procedural reforms need to be
introduced:

Standardized and Time-Bound Procedures:

State-wise uniform guidelines should be adopted regarding the timeline within which an
application has to be processed and disbursement made. Provision for interim compensation
would also have to be institutionalized, with each stage having a fixed timeline.

Capacity Building and Sensitization:

Regular training could be imparted to police officers, court clerks, and DLSA staff in their
processes of victim rights and compensation. Supreme Court directives and provisions of the
CrPC need to be made a part of this training on a standardized basis.

Inter-Agency Coordination on an Improved Level:

Establishment should take place whereby digital data relating to police FIRs, court orders, and
DLSA portals shall be interlinked. Strengthening the real-time tracking with compensation
applications should be put to practice, and its status should be made available to victims and their
advocates. 11

10 Dev Kumar Sharma, Legal Aid in India: Promoting Access to Justice and Empowering the
Marginalized, 1 Inst. Legal Educ. 15 (2023).
11 Shruti Vidyasagar, Shruthi Naik & Harish Narasappa, Justice Frustrated: The Systemic Impact of
Delays in Indian Courts(Bloomsbury Publishing 2020).
Accountability Frameworks:

Accountability frameworks may be built into the system; that is, delays must be reported
mandatorily, penalties imposed on those guilty of negligent behavior, and performance
evaluations tied to the timely disbursal of victim compensation.12

Victim-Centric Help Desk:

DLSAs and police stations should set up victim-centric help desks or nodal officers for guiding
persons through the compensation procedure, assisting with the collection of documents,
following up on applications, etc.

Public Awareness Campaigns:

Governments should launch awareness campaigns through local bodies to inform citizens about
victim compensation, their rights to claim it, and how to go about it.13

Regular Audits and Feedback Mechanisms:

These schemes should be subject to independent audits every year. A feedback mechanism from
victims and providers of legal aid must be institutionalized to highlight bottlenecks and avenues
for reform.

3.2. Disparity State-Wise Compensation Amounts

12 Rajesh Kumar Singh, Barriers to Accessing Legal Aid for Domestic Violence Victims in Rural India: A
Study of Uttar Pradesh, 3 Stud. Soc. Sci. & Human. 31 (2024).
13 Jeet Singh Mann, Scheme of Action Research and Studies on Judicial Reforms (Dept. of Justice,
Ministry of Law & Justice 2023).
Disparate amounts of compensation awarded between states is perhaps one of the steepest
challenges in the implementation of victim compensation schemes in India. Though a statutory
mandate was created under Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC),
thereby directing every State Government in preparation of a victim compensation scheme in
consultation with the Central Government, the actual amounts of payouts vary significantly in
states. This lack of uniformity and standardization leads to the unequal wings of justice and
raises concerns for federal fairness and constitutional guarantee of equality before law under
Article 14.14

3.2.1. Variation of Compensation Schemes From State to State

Below is a comparative table illustrating the disparity in compensation for rape survivors across
selected Indian states:

STATE COMPENSATION
FOR RAPE VICTIMS

Uttrakhand ₹3 lakh State Victim In a 2023 case, the court

Compensation Scheme awarded ₹3 lakh to a 10-
year-old survivor, aligning
with the NALSA
guideline.

Delhi ₹10.5 lakh per Delhi Victim In a 2021 case, the court
survivor Compensation Scheme ordered ₹21 lakh total
compensation for two
minor survivors,
significantly exceeding the
minimum guideline.

Odisha ₹5 lakh Odisha Victim In a 2016 case, the court

Compensation Scheme directed ₹5 lakh

14 Gitanjali Prasad & Mrinal Satish, Exclusion from Access to Legal Justice, in India Exclusion Report
2016 127 (2017).
 compensation to the
mother of a 5-year-old
victim, surpassing the
minimum
recommendation.

Maharasht ₹3 lakh Manodhairya Scheme Provides ₹75,000 upfront

ra and ₹2.25 lakh in a 10-
year fixed deposit;
however, funds can be
reclaimed if the survivor
turns hostile during trial.

Uttar ₹25 lakh State Government In the 2020 Hathras case,

Pradesh Compensation the government announced
₹25 lakh compensation,
along with a government
job and housing for the
victim's family.

Gujarat ₹50 lakh Supreme Court Mandate In the Bilkis Bano case,
the Supreme Court ordered
₹50 lakh compensation, a
government job, and
housing, highlighting
judicial intervention in
exceptional cases.

3.2.2. Lack of Uniformity and Its Consequences

Due to the inefficiency of a common national framework, victims are treated differently merely based on
location, which leads to violation of equal protection available under Article 14 of the Constitution and
creates a compensation lottery where the extent of victim compensation depends less on the magnitude of
their loss and more on the efficiency and generosity of the state authorities.

There exists no uniform mode or manner of computation of compensation. Some states consider income
level of the victim while others consider the offence only. This results in inconsistency even within the
state and paves the way for discretion. Perhaps a worst-case example: Two victims of rape from the same
state can be awarded vastly different sums of money depending upon factors such as levels of judicial
discretion, availability of advocacy, or systemic bias in bureaucratic adjudication. 15

Some High Courts have supported this lacuna and recommended the need for uniformity. It was claimed
by the Delhi High Court that such disparities defeat the very purpose of compensatory schemes and called
for a harmonized [Link] Union Government, however, has yet taken no concerted initiative
towards enacting uniform victim compensation legislation for all the states. 16

Consequently, inconsistencies in compensation also exist in rehabilitation. Some victims are able to pay
compensation for medical treatment, trauma counseling, or relocation, whereas some of them receive an
amount that scarcely fulfills the basic needs of restoration. Thus, it depletes aggravation from
compensation and worsens the injustice condition.

3.2.3. Barriers to Standardization

The reasons allowing disparities to remain in compensation are many:

Federal Setup and Autonomy of the States:

The Constitution gives the states power to make laws regarding the system of legal aid and compensation
to victims. Such decentralization is important for reasons of contextual governance, but it makes for
fragmentation and non-uniformity.

Allocation of Resources and Fiscal Constraints:

States which are willing and able to raise their own resources, like Delhi or Kerala, tend to award higher
amounts of compensation, while the weaker ones are not able to allocate such funds. Sometimes
compensation orders are passed, but they are not implemented for want of budgetary allocation.

15 Anup Surendranath & Gale Andrew, State Legal Aid and Undertrials: Are There No Takers?, 6 Indian
L. Rev. 303 (2022).
16 Jeet Singh Mann, Comparative Legal Aid Systems and India (Routledge India 2022).
Lack of the Monitoring:

There is no central agency to regularly review or compare compensation schemes of different states.
NALSA, though vested with coordinating power, lacks enforcement power to force states to amend or
improve the schemes.

Lack of Victims' Participation in Policy Making:

Victims or victim advocates are hardly ever included in the drafting of compensation guidelines leading
to top-down policies that generally do not resolve the actual financial and emotional requirements of the
victims.

3.2.4. Judicial Observations and Policy Suggestions

Courts have emphasised that the approach must be standardised. The Supreme Court in Nipun
Saxena v. Union of India17, inter alia, directed all the States to adopt minimum compensation
norms and ensure timely disbursal. However, it still remains that, as civil society monitoring
shows, many States never updated their schemes or still work on obsolete criteria.

To address these gaps, the following policy interventions are suggested:

Legislation on Victim Compensation by the Centre: The Union Government may consider
enacting a comprehensive statute akin to the Victim and Witness Protection Act, which would
fix minimum compensation amounts for certain crimes, leaving room for enhancement by the
states.

Creation of Victim Compensation Fund: A centrally administered fund, with equal voluntary
contributions from Centre and States, may ensure provision of equal support to victims all over
India, regardless of the state capacity.

Instance of Orders/Guidelines to NALSA: Model rules which are binding rather than model
programmes should be framed by NALSA in respect of prescribing a range of compensation for
defined categories of harm and factors to be taken into consideration.

17
Auditing and Public Disclosure on an Annual Basis: States must be required to annually publish
reports stating the compensation disbursed, timelines taken, and pending applications. The
transparency thereby created would enable benchmarking and pave way for competitions among
the states for the improvement of performance.

Review of Compensation with Inflation and Medical Costs: Periodic adjustments of

compensation should be done to reflect the prevailing economic realities and keep pace with the
expenses of recovery, rehabilitation, and legal proceedings.

3.3. Judicial Discretion and Inconsistency

The judicial role in compensation to crime victims, especially for heinous crimes such as rape, acid
attacks, and custodial torture, is undoubtedly critical. In India, however, the victim compensation
landscape suffers from irregularities such as the wide discretion in the judicial interpretation of guidelines
and the quantum of compensation. Such discretion has constitutional validity but has provided for an
unequal access to justice by two victims similarly situated. There is also no proper structured
representation of the victims while the compensation proceedings are being conducted, furthering the
disparity.

3.3.1. Varying Quantum and Logic of Awards

Compensations ordered by trial courts across the country manifest wide and often inexplicable variability.
This inconsistency arises not only due to differing interpretations by the judiciary as to what constitutes
"just compensation" under Section 357A of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), but also because of the
nonexistence of clear legislative criteria laying down the quantum of compensation thereunder. While the
Supreme Court in Laxmi v. Union of India18 (AIR 2015 SC 3662) accepted that uniformity is necessary
and directed all states to follow the guidelines laid down by NALSA, the implementation of such remain
sketchy so far.

In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra 19 [(2013) 6 SCC 770], the apex court reaffirmed that
awarding compensation is not a matter incidental to but is an integral part of the criminal justice system
and laid the emphasis that courts are to apply their minds to the question of compensation to victims in

18 Laxmi v. Union of India & Ors., AIR 2015 SC 3662 (India).

19 Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra, (2013) 5 S.C.C. 360 (India).
every criminal proceeding. It fell short of prescribing a specific yardstick for calculation of quantum. This
freedom leads to subjective application of the law, resulting in:

Differing interpretations of injury: Courts cannot agree on what constitutes 'serious' physical or
psychological harm, thereby deciding larger or smaller amounts of compensation.

Varying degrees of aggravating or mitigating circumstances: Circumstances such as gang rape, custodial
rape, repeated victimization, or the like inconsistently affect the awards.

In Nipun Saxena v. Union of India [(2019) SCC OnLine SC 703], for instance, the Court directed for the
confidentiality of the victim’s identity and stressed compensation under Section 357A CrPC but refused
to impose a uniform amount. As a result, the lower courts awarded compensation ranging from ₹50,000
to even ₹10 lakh, depending on the judicial outlook rather than any compulsion of law.

Comparative studies say that a rape victim in Delhi may be compensated by ₹5 lakh, whereas a similar
victim in Assam may stand to receive only ₹1 lakh or less, depending on the bench interpretation. This
variation contradicts an assurance of constitutional guarantee of equality before the law under Article 14.

3.3.2. Absence of Victim Participation in Decision-Making

Another major issue relates to the lack of structured victim participation in compensation
hearings. Victim compensation, meant to provide assistance in healing and reintegration, is often
awarded with little or no meaningful input from the survivor. This is done despite the growing
recognition internationally that victim-centric approaches form the kernel of restorative justice.
The victim is regarded with compassion and respect, and should be able to participate in the
proceedings affecting them, according to the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice
for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power. 20In effect, however, in India, most trial courts fail to:

Inform the victims of their right to compensation;

Allow victims to submit representations on the adequacy or urgency of relief; and

Hear the victim on aggravating or mitigating factors before deciding the quantum of
compensation. For instance, these make it clear how the lack of participation framework leads to
relief being granted symbolically, rather than as a measure of transformative justice. In addition,
20 Daniel Pascoe & Marie Manikis, Making Sense of the Victim’s Role in Clemency Decision Making, 26
Int’l Rev. Victimol. 3 (2020).
victim participation by survivors from marginalized communities such as SC/ST, LGBTQ+, and
tribal victims is often hindered due to linguistic, economic, and legal barriers. Without trauma-
informed legal aid, victims simply cannot raise objections to inadequate compensation or draw
attention to aggravating factors. The current system, therefore, operates as a procedural
formality, not as a substantive right.21

3.3.3. Judicial Precedents and Their Limitations

The subject of compensation has been known for a very long time and any compensation that is given to
the victim is basically in terms of damages arising from the commission of a crime. The courts in India
have traditionally been concerned with the plight of the victims and have laid down important decisions
and principles pertaining to compensation, such as:

The State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Vidhyawati 22 [(1962) Supp 2 SCR 989], which was on the issue of state
liability in torts;

Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty23 [(1996) 1 SCC 490], which was the pioneering judgement
on interim compensation on a rape case;

Unlike, in the UK or Germany where Criminal Injuries Compensation Authorities (CICA) award sums
that are usually consistent and depend on the seriousness of the injury and pain and suffering caused,
India has no such tariff or grid on which to fall back. Occasional judicial pronouncements keep calling for
"reasonable" or "fair" compensation but are yet to define the amounts, thereby rendering the entire system
even more unfounded and arbitrary.

A degree of observed consistency between victim redressal mechanisms can only be attained if
institutional frameworks are instituted that place restrictions upon subjective discretion and open venues
of comparative justice. Indian overreliance on court-led remedies in the absence of structural checks fails
to meet the standard.

3.3.4. Emerging Scholarly Critique and Reform Proposals

21 Ian Edwards, An Ambiguous Participant: The Crime Victim and Criminal Justice Decision-Making, 44
Brit. J. Criminol.967 (2004).Ian Edwards, An Ambiguous Participant: The Crime Victim and Criminal
Justice Decision-Making, 44 Brit. J. Criminol.967 (2004).
22 State of Rajasthan v. Smt. Vidhyawati, (1962) Supp. 2 SCR 989 (India).
23 Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, (1996) 1 SCC 490 (India).
The fragmented nature of victim compensation jurisprudence in India has been considered an
issue by legal scholars and [Link] seems to be growing agreement over the
following reforms:

Statutory Compensation Grids: Fixed ranges to be determined based on injury, trauma, loss of
livelihood, and social exclusion, similar to the Irish model of CICA.

Victim Representation Mandate: Amend Section 357A CrPC or the Legal Services Authorities
Act to provide for victim consultation in all compensation hearings.

Review Mechanisms: Enable victims to appeal compensation awards or request revision in view
of changed circumstances.

Mandatory Reasoned Orders: Courts should mandate that they provide detailed reasons
whenever they dispense NALSA norms or order less than the prescribed minimum.

Integration with Welfare Services: Compensation should not be a one-time grant but should be
connected with rehabilitation, counseling, education, and housing supports.

The promise of victim compensation as a tool for restorative justice is being eroded by
unchecked judicial discretion and fungibility of victims. Nevertheless, the judiciary has had a
positive hand in many landmark cases favoring victims; at the same time, the absence of
predictability, transparency, and victim inclusiveness in the compensation orders has dented
systemic justice.24

To cure this, India needs to institutionalize a rights-based, participatory, and standardized

framework that not only respects judicial wisdom but also empowers victims to co-own the
pursuit of justice. The future of victim compensation is shaped not only by how much, but also
by the manner in which it is awarded and the reasons for awarding it.

3.4 Lack of Awareness Among Victims

24 David Miers, Offender and State Compensation for Victims of Crime: Two Decades of Development
and Change, 20 Int’l Rev. Victimol. 145 (2014).
A very big hurdle to the realization of victim compensation in India is the mass awareness of
victims about their legal titles and the mechanisms available to them. Over the years, the
legislative scenario has been very progressive, so did the judiciaries intervene in several cases for
victim compensation, but awareness about victim compensation is alarmingly low, which indeed
limits their access to restorative justice. Thus, this section tries to analyze the dynamics of this
problem through empirical evidence, raising the main concerns: rates of application,
underreporting of crimes, and societal stigmas.

3.4.1 Low Application Rates for Victim Compensation

Foremost, the gross unawareness of victims has proven to be a great stumbling block toward the
realization of victim compensation in India. Legislative developments over the years have been
very progressive, as did interventions of various judicial bodies in several cases touching upon
victim compensation; yet, awareness about victim compensation is regrettably low, affecting
their access to restorative justice. Hence, this section attempts at an analysis of the problem
dynamics from empirical evidence and poses two major concerns: application rates,
underreporting of crimes, and social stigma.

3.4.2 Underreporting of Crimes Due to Lack of Awareness

The awareness of victims has been closely related to crime reporting. Many victims do not lodge
complaints for various reasons, the chief among them being obliviousness regarding remedies
and compensation.

Domestic Violence:

The National Family Health Survey (NFHS) 2019-21 revealed that a whopping 86% of Indian
women subjected to domestic violence did not reveal their agony to anyone-not even to friends
or family members.25 It also points to a psychological dynamic wherein the victims begin to
internalize patriarchal values and view the abuse as resulting from their own shortcomings. This

25 National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5), India, 2019-21, Key Findings on Domestic Violence Against
Women.
invisibility of suffering severely oppresses access to legal frameworks such as the Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; its relief machinery, and/or compensation
thereunder.

Sexual Harassment in Public Spaces:

Another survey conducted in big cities such as Delhi and Mumbai states that only 7.5% of sexual
harassment cases in Delhi and 11.1% in Mumbai were reported to the police. The low levels of
reporting indicate that there exists a large gap in awareness regarding legal rights, existence of
support mechanisms like women's helpline, legal aid cells, or even basic procedures pertaining to
filing an FIR. The absence of sensitization drives at the community level only adds to the
problem.

3.4.3 Societal and Cultural Barriers

Besides mainly lacking legal awareness, victims come up against deeper entrenched cultural and
social stigmas that together discourage them from taking their cases further. In most cases, such
conditioning begins early in life, working its insidious way through education, religion, and
family structures.

Cultural Taboos and Stigma: For instance, menstruation is one of those taboo subjects
surrounded by misinformation and shame in the Patna regions. Similar tabu prevents open
discussions on sexual violence, trafficking, and domestic violence, thereby discouraging the
victims from recognizing their suffering or even seeking help from the justice machinery.
Victim-shaming, social ostracism, and the secondary trauma induced by such societal restraints
come a long way to weaken victims' will and sovereignty to seek adequate legal relief and
compensation.26

Fear of Retaliation and Honor-based Concerns: Especially in rural and semi-urban areas, the act
of lodging police reports for rape and molestation matters is seen as an attack on family honor.
26 Ashwini Kumar Sahu & Laxmikanta Das, Victim Jurisprudence and Victim Compensation Scheme:
Socio-Legal Analysis, 8 NUJS J. Regul. Stud. 51 (2023).
Women are burdened with protecting social reputation and are silenced into tacit acceptance of
the very grievous crimes against them. This further renders them unable to benefit from
legislation for victim compensation and the related legal measures.27

3.4.4 Systemic Implementation Gaps

Even when victims know and wish to seek legal relief, systemic impediments serve as deterrents.
The coordination between police, judiciary, and DLSAs is disjointed, leading to delays,
administrative hurdles, and no accountability whatsoever.

Ineffectiveness of DLSAs:

Though Section 357A of the CrPC mandates every state to set up a scheme for victim
compensation under the supervision of State and District Legal Services Authorities, in reality,
the bodies remain under-resourced, under-staffed and also find their personnel under-trained.
Hence, victims hardly get any guidance with the application for compensation. The delays in
processing applications, inconsistent decisions on claims, and arbitrary dismissals are quite
rampant.

Inadequate Police Support:

In many cases, police officers acting as the first point of contact for victims were not aware of
their responsibility to inform victims about their rights; training curricula for the law
enforcement officers almost never dealt with victim support or the legal entitlements of victims;
hence, lack of training further disconnects the victim from the justice system.

3.4.5 Legislative and Judicial Disconnect

There exists a deep chasm between progressive judicial pronouncements and implementation at
the ground level. For example, in landmark judgments like Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of

27 John Braithwaite, Restorative Justice and a Better Future, 76 Dalhousie Rev. 9 (1996).
Maharashtra (2013)-where the Supreme Court directed the courts to consider compensation even
if it is not specifically prayed for-it is rare for a lower court to actually consider it.

Inadequate Monitoring Mechanisms:

There exist no uniform national-level mechanisms for monitoring the implementation of

compensation schemes. Due to the lack of periodic audit reports and transparency in
disbursement, as well as absence of feedback from the victims, accountability remains very low,
and policy enforcement becomes ineffective.

Need for Judicial Activism:

While compensation to victims has been extensively promoted by superior courts, a consistent
judicial activism need to take shape at the district level. Judges need to be sensitized and held
accountable whenever compensation has to be recommended. This becomes all the more
necessary because victims are unwilling to undertake the arduous process of pursuing the matter
through legal channels on their own.28

3.4.6 Recommendations and the Way Forward

In view of the multifaceted nature of the awareness crisis, the following measures could possibly
work:
Mass Awareness Campaigns: The Government and other NGOs could enter into an agreement
for sustained mass awareness creation through television and radio as well as community
outreach programs that explain to the public about victim compensation availability and the
process.

Victim-Centric Police Reforms: Train the police in victim support, ensuring that they inform
victims of their rights to compensation with all immediacy and accuracy.

28 Andrew Ashworth, Some Doubts About Restorative Justice, 4 Crim. L.F. 277 (1993).
DLSA Strengthening: Increase funding and manpower for Legal Services Authorities. Mobile
legal aid clinics must also be set up in remote areas.

Procedural Simplification: Set up digital platforms having multi-language support to file victim
compensation applications and track the case status. Reduce documentation and verification
requirements.

Judges to Recommend Compensation Cases: Introduce legal provisions to the effect that courts
would have to analyze and record reasons for not recommending compensation, thereby
enhancing adherence to judicial directions.

School and College Sensitization Programs: Incorporate basic legal education on victim rights
and gender sensitization into school and college curricula.

Victim compensation as restorative justice remains illusory unless an equal emphasis is laid on
creating awareness, breaking societal barriers, and reforming systemic inefficiencies. This lack
of awareness among victims puts their legal rights in jeopardy and erosion of faith in the legal
system by the public at large. The preeminent need to bridge the awareness gap is that victims be
informed about their legal rights and supported all through from reporting of crimes till the
disbursement of compensation, which would largely fulfill the constitutional goal of access to
justice29. Addressing the lacuna in awareness would take concerted efforts towards legislative
changes, strengthening of institutions, awareness generation, and better social attitudes.

3.5. Issues Faced by Marginalized and Vulnerable Groups

3.5.1. Challenges Faced by Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (SC/ST)

In India, SC and ST communities remain subjects of discrimination, social exclusion, and

violence, barring any section-based law. Even when protective regulations such as the Scheduled
Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, exist, victims from these

29J o-Anne Wemmers, Restorative Justice for Victims of Crime: A Victim-Oriented Approach to
Restorative Justice, 9 Int’l Rev. Victimol. 43 (2002).
communities face overwhelming obstacles in securing justice and compensation. Social stigma
and fear of reprisal keep many such victims from reporting the offenses against them or claiming
victim compensation. In fact, these complaints usually face biased institutions within law
enforcement agencies, meaning that they rarely get appropriately investigated or result in
dismissals. Other factors such as delays and inefficient processing of allowing compensation
applications only manage to add to their woes and cement their marginalization as they have to
suffer in limbo or get inadequate compensation.30

3.5.2. Issues Encountered by Women Victims

Many barriers hinder women, particularly those from economically and socially disadvantaged
backgrounds, in accessing victim compensation. Crimes like domestic violence, sexual assault, and
trafficking are cloaked by cultural and patriarchal norms in a haze of silence and shame, causing many
women to shy away from seeking justice. There is a further barrier, especially in peripheries, because
women lack awareness about compensation schemes-that is, without this awareness, claiming rightful
benefits becomes a challenging prospect. The moment women actually try to obtain judicial remedies, the
dearth of legal aid services that are both sensitive and easily accessible closes down further possibilities.
31
This gap assumes more significance in the case of women survivors, who-victim compensation aside-
who have some need for expert psychological support and protective measures but find these resources
almost nonexistent or unattainable.

3.5.3. Barriers Faced by LGBTQ+ Communities

Despite the landmark judgment of decriminalising consensual same-sex relationships in 2018, there still
exists a great deal of social stigma and discriminations against the LGBTQ+ population in India. Many
LGBTQ individuals are ostracised socially and also lack legal recognition when it comes to family rights,
inheritance, and protection against violence. Such denial of legal status limits the possibility for them to
seek compensation under victim compensation schemes. On the other hand, many remain reluctant to
report incidents of crimes or abuses upon fears of further discrimination or victimization, which
ultimately results in an under-reporting situation and thus little awareness about the legal remedies at their

30 Jagan Karade, ed., Development of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in India (Cambridge
Scholars Publ’g 2009).
31 Alice Yuen Loke, Mei Lan Emma Wan & Mark Hayter, The Lived Experience of Women Victims of
Intimate Partner Violence, 21 J. Clinical Nursing 2336 (2012).
disposal. These issues are further compounded by the lack of any policies or sensitization to the specific
victim-related needs of LGBTQ victims within the existing compensation setting. 32

3.5.4. Challenges for Religious Minorities and Other Vulnerable Groups

Religious minorities and other vulnerable groups of people stand to disproportionately endure systematic
denial of justice and compensation in India. Incidents of communal violence and discrimination create an
atmosphere of fear and disbelief so much so that victims can be dissuaded from approaching authorities.
In many cases, the victims fall prey to a Municipal Government that is either biased or neglectful in its
duties toward them, or they face the dragging of their issues in courts or outright refusal of compensation.
When compensation schemes are applied unevenly to different communities, it exacerbates feelings of
injustice and alienation, which in turn further engross the schisms within society.

3.5.5. Intersectionality and Systemic Exclusion

Addressing the multifaceted barriers faced by marginalized victims calls for understanding the
intersectional nature of discrimination. Intersectionality is about how overlapping identities, be it
caste, gender, sexual orientation, or religion, interact to multiply the experiences of a
disadvantage.33 A Dalit woman may be discriminated against for her caste and also for being a
woman, implying that her level of vulnerability increases and so does her difficulty in accessing
compensation for victims. Similarly, LGBTQ+ persons from minority religious backgrounds
might encounter intensified exclusion due to intersecting forms of marginalization. Such
intersecting identities often combine and result in systemic exclusion: lack of sensitization
among law enforcement, judicial authorities, and compensation agencies to understand the
unique challenges involved. Further down the road exist structural barriers-general issues such as
cumbersome procedure requirements, low outreach, unavailability of legal aid, or simply socio-
economic deprivation-inhibiting the potential of marginalized groups to fully access and be
compensated through victim compensation schemes.

3.6. Legal Aid and Representation Challenges

32 Philippa Laskey & Lauren T. Bolam, Barriers to Support in LGBTQ+ Populations, in Intimate Partner
Violence 73 (Florence L. Denmark et al. eds., Routledge 2019).
33 Sue Nichols & Garth Stahl, Intersectionality in Higher Education Research: A Systematic Literature
Review, 38 Higher Educ. Res. & Dev. 1255 (2019).
3.6.1. Role and Effectiveness of Legal Services Authorities

Legal Services Authorities (LSAs) have been established as statutory bodies under the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, in order to promote access to justice and provide free legal aid to
individuals unable to afford the same, including those victims of crimes seeking compensation.
These authorities work at various levels, such as national, State, District, and Taluka, thus
ensuring wide outreach. Their work comprises not just the facilitation of victims' claims for
compensation, but also encompasses assisting victims who do not understand procedures through
detailed explanations, filing documentation, and court representation.

Unfortunately, however, LSAs seem to suffer from uneven efficacy and efficiency in actuality.
There is a framework-in-theory, and there are huge problems plaguing its implementation. In
most districts, LSAs suffer from shortages of qualified legal professionals, administrative staff,
and infrastructure. Sometimes such shortages bring about inordinate delays in the provision of
legal aid, poor advice, and little follow-up of compensation cases. In other instances, the nature
of assistance offered is purely limited to procedural formalities, excluding all forms of victim
advocacy such as counseling, guidance on rehabilitation, or enforcement follow-up on
compensation awards.

In turn, the lack of specialized training among LSA lawyers to handle sensitive issues, such as
sexual offenses and those of a vulnerable nature, i.e., SC/ST and LGBTQ+ victims, limits their
ability to represent victims adequately. In addition, there is a lack of formal assessment or
performance-measuring criteria to check the quality and impact of the legal aid provided to
victims and thus occasioning greater regional disparities.34

3.6.2. Gaps in Outreach, Funding, and Access

One significant barrier for victim compensation is a large outreach void. Many victims,
particularly those in rural, tribal, or economically backward areas, are kept in the dark about their
rights and existing compensation schemes. Awareness campaigns of the LSAs are infrequent and

34 Jo Wilding, The Legal Aid Market: Challenges for Publicly Funded Immigration and Asylum Legal
Representation(Policy Press 2021).
poorly financed, thus minimally promoting awareness. Language barriers and low literacy could
make outreach even more difficult, as most dissemination is done in official or dominant
languages without following through with adequate translation or simplification.

Another limiting factor is funding, which severely constrains LSAs in their functioning. In view
of their dependence on government grants, they find oftentimes that these funds are not enough
for all operating expenses, such as salaries; retainers for legal assistance; transportation for
lawyers administering services in remote locations; and awareness programs. The scarcity of
funds inhibits an LSA's ability to expand, undertake capacity building, or rendering any other
form of support to victims. Many LSAs are also affected by delays in the disbursement of these
funds, thus impeding the planning and implementation of victim compensation programs.35

A lack of infrastructure is another key limitation that impinges on the smooth provision of legal
aid. Absence of the centers in remote and tribal areas means very few victims can afford to pay
the great distances to get help. The social stigma attached to certain crimes discourages victims
from standing out or even seeking support, more so in sexual violence cases. This stands to be
aggravated by a near absence of female lawyers or counselors, who are so eminently necessary
for the support of women and child victims.36

Systemic issues such as bureaucratic bottlenecks, overly involved application procedures, and
lack of co-ordination between the various stakeholders-LSA, police, court, social welfare
departments-also slow down the delivery of legal assistance. For instance, victims are often
confronted with bewildering documentation requirements or are not taken through the steps of
compensation claims which lead to very many being incomplete and rejected.

35 Jennifer Alvidrez et al., Reduction of State Victim Compensation Disparities in Disadvantaged Crime
Victims Through Active Outreach and Assistance: A Randomized Trial, 98 Am. J. Pub. Health 882 (2008).
36 Ashwini Kumar Sahu & Laxmikanta Das, Victim Jurisprudence and Victim Compensation Scheme:
Socio-Legal Analysis, 8 NUJS J. Regul. Stud. 51 (2023).
Lastly, insufficient victim-sensitive approaches adopted by the LSAs decrease the capacity of
victims to empower themselves. Most times, legal aid comes in a foreground of litigation only,
missing the psycho-social and economic needs of the victims. Where integrated support services
are lacking-whether that might be trauma counseling or livelihood support-legal aid on its own
cannot help victims to reconstruct their entire life after the trauma.