Allahabad HC: Special Court Has Power to Direct SC/ST Relief Payment Under Rule 12(7), Not Merely Receive Administrative Reports
The Allahabad High Court set aside orders by the Special Judge, Jhansi, that wrongly declined to exercise jurisdiction under Rule 12(7) of the SC/ST Rules to direct payment of withheld victim relief, holding the provision vests active judicial scrutiny, not passive receipt of reports.
Justice Santosh Rai, sitting singly at the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, set aside two orders of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities), Jhansi, both dated 23 July 2024, which had rejected applications by victims seeking disbursement of withheld relief money under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Rules, 1995. The Special Judge had held that it would not be “just and proper” for it to determine the nature of the offence or fix the quantum of financial assistance. The High Court found that reasoning to be a fundamental misreading of Rule 12(7), which specifically vests the Special Court with jurisdiction to examine whether relief has been paid in full, in time, and in the correct amount, and to direct payment of the balance where it has not been. The matters were remitted for fresh decision within six weeks.
Two Cases, One Common Grievance
The leading appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 10745 of 2024, arose from Case No. 228 of 2021 before the Special Judge, Jhansi, registered as Case Crime No. 567 of 2020 at Police Station Kotwali, District Jhansi. The FIR was registered under Sections 170, 323, 504, 506 IPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, and Section 67 of the Information Technology Act.
The connected appeal, Criminal Appeal No. 10484 of 2024, arose from Case No. 322 of 2021, registered as Case Crime No. 750 of 2020 at Police Station Sipari Bazar, District Jhansi, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC, Sections 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) and 3(2)(va) of the SC/ST Act, and Section 67 of the IT Act. The appellant in this connected matter is Santosh Kumar Dohrey, who is also one of the three appellants in the leading appeal along with Arvind Kumar and Atul Raj.
In both cases, the investigating officer, while filing charge sheets, forwarded a proposal for relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- to each victim to the District Social Welfare Officer, Jhansi, in terms of Item No. 41 of the Schedule to Rule 12(4) of the Rules of 1995. Under that scheme, 25% (Rs. 50,000/-) was payable at the FIR stage, 50% (Rs. 1,00,000/-) upon submission of the charge sheet within seven days, and the remaining 25% upon conviction. By the charge-sheet stage, therefore, a total of Rs. 1,50,000/- had become due to each victim.
The District Social Welfare Officer, Jhansi, however, paid only Rs. 75,000/- to each victim, restricting disbursement to 37.5% of the assessed relief rather than the 75% that had fallen due. Despite representations sent on 19 January 2024, 10 February 2024, and 13 March 2024, the balance of Rs. 75,000/- per victim remained unpaid. The victims then moved applications before the Special Judge under Rules 12(4) and 12(7) of the Rules of 1995.
Why the Special Judge's Rejection Was Wrong
The Special Judge, by the impugned order of 23 July 2024, noted a report of the District Social Welfare Officer dated 4 June 2024, which stated that the District Level Committee had itself reassessed the admissible relief downward — from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- — and that 75% of this revised figure, i.e., Rs. 75,000/-, had already been paid. On that basis, the Special Judge concluded it would be improper to determine the nature of the offence or to direct the District Level Committee to enhance the quantum. Both applications were rejected.
Counsel for the appellants, Shri Braj Mohan Singh, argued before the High Court that this amounted to a refusal to exercise jurisdiction that Rule 12(7) expressly confers. Rule 12(7) provides that a report on relief and rehabilitation provided to victims shall be forwarded to the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court by the District Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Executive Magistrate, or Superintendent of Police. Where the Special Court is satisfied that relief was not paid in time, or was inadequate, or only partly paid, it may direct full or part payment of the balance amount or any other assistance.
Justice Santosh Rai agreed. The High Court held that Rule 12(7) “is not merely enabling but is couched in terms that contemplate active judicial scrutiny” by the Special Court. The Special Court is not a passive recipient of the administrative report. It is the statutory authority charged with satisfying itself whether relief paid meets the standard prescribed under the Schedule to Rule 12(4) and, where it does not, to issue directions for payment of the balance. The impugned order, founded on a misconstruction of the court's own jurisdiction, could not be sustained.
The Dispute Over Which Schedule Entry Applies
A further legal dispute ran beneath the surface. The offences in both cases appear to attract multiple entries in the Schedule appended to Rule 12(4). Serial Nos. 18 and 19 of the Schedule, corresponding to Sections 3(1)(r) and 3(1)(s) of the Act respectively, prescribe a minimum relief of Rs. 1,00,000/-. Serial No. 41, corresponding to Section 3(2)(va) of the Act, prescribes Rs. 2,00,000/-. The District Level Committee had applied the lower figure; the appellants contended the higher figure was applicable.
The High Court declined to resolve that question itself. Instead, it directed the Special Judge to examine the nature and ingredients of each offence for which cognisance has been taken, and to record a clear finding as to which Schedule entry is actually attracted. That exercise, the Court emphasised, must not be mechanical or based merely on the sections cited in the charge sheet. It must proceed on the substance of the allegations and the ingredients of the offences.
Following that finding by the Special Judge, the matter is to be placed before the District Welfare Committee for it to reconsider the quantum of compensation by a reasoned, speaking order. If more than one entry is claimed to be applicable, the Committee must state the legal basis for accepting or rejecting each claim, and may not grant or deny the higher amount solely on the basis of the number of sections mentioned in the charge sheet.
The State's Disclosure and the Enquiry Directed
The Learned Additional Government Advocate, Shri Rajesh Kumar Shukla, did not seriously dispute the statutory scheme of Rule 12(7) as argued by the appellants. However, on the strength of the State's counter affidavit and supporting records, he brought to the Court's notice that appellant Santosh Kumar Dohrey (Advocate), along with his family members, had received a cumulative sum of Rs. 23,36,250/- by way of relief and financial assistance under the Rules of 1995 and connected schemes across various criminal cases. Additionally, approximately 10 to 12 further criminal cases lodged by Dohrey or his family were pending before the concerned District Level Committee for disbursal of further relief.
The High Court observed that recurrent registration of criminal cases followed by claims for relief does not, by itself, establish misuse. Nonetheless, the scale and frequency disclosed in the proceedings were such that they could not be left unexamined. The Court directed the District Magistrate, Jhansi, in coordination with the Senior Superintendent of Police, Jhansi, to conduct a thorough, fair, and time-bound enquiry, to be completed within three months from the date of production of a certified copy of the order, into the antecedents of the criminal cases registered by Santosh Kumar Dohrey and his family and the relief amounts received or claimed therein. The Court made clear that this enquiry direction does not constitute any finding on the merits of the victims' entitlement to relief, which is to be determined independently by the District Level Committee.
If the enquiry reveals misuse of the Act or the Rules of 1995 by Dohrey, any family member, or any officer or authority responsible for processing or sanctioning claims, the State of Uttar Pradesh is directed to take appropriate action, including at a higher administrative level, against all persons found responsible.
Statewide Directions on Rule 12(7) Compliance and Systemic Safeguards
Beyond the two cases before it, the High Court issued directions of general application across Uttar Pradesh. The Government of Uttar Pradesh was directed to undertake a broad-based and intensive statewide enquiry into the manner in which benefits under the SC/ST Act, the Rules of 1995, and related Government Orders and schemes are being claimed and disbursed, with particular attention to repeated claims by the same persons or their family members. The enquiry is also to examine whether adequate verification and scrutiny are being undertaken before public funds are released.
On procedural compliance, the Court observed that Rule 12(7) casts a specific obligation on the concerned district administration to ensure that the prescribed report is forwarded to the Special Court or Exclusive Special Court within the time specified. The concerned authorities of every district in Uttar Pradesh are directed to strictly comply with this mandate, record such compliance at the district level, and treat any deviation or omission seriously.
The Court also addressed the Special Judges themselves, stating that every Special Judge dealing with proceedings under the Act shall remain conscious of the possibility of misuse of the beneficial provisions of the Act, Rules, and schemes. This observation was qualified: it does not require the Special Court to prejudge any claim or to deny any lawful benefit to a genuine victim.
The Registrar General of the High Court was directed to transmit a copy of the judgment within ten days to the District and Sessions Judge, District Magistrate, SSP/SP, Police Commissioner, and Special Judge SC/ST Act of all districts in Uttar Pradesh, as well as to the Chief Secretary, the Principal Secretary of the Home Department, and the Principal Secretary of the Law/Justice Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Outcome
The orders dated 23 July 2024 of the Special Judge, SC/ST Act (Prevention of Atrocities), Jhansi, rejecting application Paper No. 32-B in Case No. 228 of 2021 and application Paper No. 25-B in Case No. 322 of 2021, were set aside. Both matters were remitted to the Special Judge for fresh decision, strictly in accordance with law and in light of the High Court's observations, within six weeks of receipt of a copy of the judgment. Criminal Appeal Nos. 10745 of 2024 and 10484 of 2024 were disposed of accordingly.