Calcutta HC: State Legal Services Authority Cannot Dictate How Trafficking Victims Spend Their Compensation

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dismissed appeals by the SLSA, holding that the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme 2017 grants adult victims an unrestricted right over their awarded funds, and that directing 75 per cent of the compensation into a fixed deposit for 10 years was without legal basis.

The Calcutta High Court has ruled that the Member-Secretary of the State Legal Services Authority, West Bengal (SLSA) had no authority to condition the disbursement of victim compensation by requiring adult victims to lock 75 per cent of their awarded amount in a bank deposit for 10 years. A Division Bench of Justice Arijit Banerjee and Justice Apurba Sinha Ray, deciding two writ appeals together on 7 August 2026, found the SLSA's directions to be wholly outside the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, and affirmed that a victim who has attained majority retains full liberty over how to spend the compensation received under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

The Two Victims and the SLSA Directions

The two appeals arose from criminal proceedings in which courts had awarded compensation to two women who were victims of human trafficking. Achiya Bibi was awarded Rs. 3 lakh under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Supiya Bibi received Rs. 4 lakh — Rs. 3 lakh for having been trafficked and Rs. 1 lakh for being a victim of rape.

Before either woman could access her award, the Member-Secretary of the SLSA stepped in. By an order dated 9 August 2019 concerning Achiya Bibi, and by a separate order dated 6 September 2019 concerning Supiya Bibi, the Member-Secretary directed that 75 per cent of each victim's compensation be deposited in a nationalised bank in a Monthly Income Scheme in the victim's name for a period of 10 years, with an auto-renewal option, and that a compliance report be submitted within 40 days of receipt of the funds.

Both women challenged those directions before a learned Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court by filing separate writ petitions — WP No. 233 (W) of 2020 and WP No. 19305 (W) of 2019 respectively. The Single Judge allowed both petitions by a judgment and order dated 11 March 2020, setting aside the SLSA directions. The SLSA then preferred the two present appeals, MAT 509 of 2020 and MAT 510 of 2020.

The Competing Legal Arguments

Before the Division Bench, as before the Single Judge, the respondent-victims argued that the SLSA's directions went beyond anything authorised by the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, which the State Government had framed under Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The SLSA appeared to have borrowed selectively from Clause 11 of the Model Scheme framed by the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA), which contemplates depositing 75 per cent of the compensation in a fixed deposit for a minimum of 3 years, with exceptions for educational, medical, or other pressing needs. The victims contended that the Model Scheme was not directly applicable in West Bengal, which had its own scheme, and that partially adopting the NLSA restriction while offering a lower quantum of compensation was unlawful.

The SLSA advanced several counter-arguments. It contended that the compensation awarded to a victim under Section 357-A is not “property” within the meaning of Article 300A of the Constitution and therefore no question of deprivation arose. It argued that imposing conditions on disbursement was entirely within SLSA's discretion and was done to protect victims from misuse of the funds. The SLSA also relied on Rule 6 of the National Legal Services Authority Rules, 1995 and on Sections 4, 7 and 14 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, to argue that State authorities are obliged to follow NLSA policy — including Clause 11 of the NLSA Model Scheme. Instances from certain districts of West Bengal where compensation money had allegedly been misused were cited to justify the protective measure. Finally, the SLSA observed that it is headed by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and the senior-most puisne Judge, and invited the court to presume that the directions were issued for the furtherance of justice.

How the Single Judge Had Reasoned

The Single Judge examined Section 357-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Sections 4, 7, 14 and 16 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and Rule 6 of the NLSA Rules. He first dealt with the institutional argument squarely: the impugned orders were issued by the Member-Secretary of the SLSA, not by the Chief Justice or the senior-most puisne Judge. Even if those officers had issued the directions in their administrative capacity under the Legal Services Authorities Act, the orders would remain amenable to judicial review.

Turning to the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017, the Single Judge examined Clause 6 in detail. Sub-clauses (4) and (8) of Clause 6 were the only provisions that addressed the mode of disbursal. Those provisions showed that the role of the authorities ends with remitting the compensation into the bank account declared by the victim or her dependents. Clause 6 does not authorise any fetter on how a victim may subsequently use the money.

The Single Judge also considered the Supreme Court's directions in Nipun Saxena v. Union of India, arising from WP (C) No. 565 of 2012, in which the Supreme Court accepted the NLSA Model Scheme and directed all State Governments and Union Territory Administrations to implement it. However, the Supreme Court in that judgment also observed that State Governments are not precluded from adding to the Model Scheme. The Single Judge noted that West Bengal had not amended its 2017 Scheme to incorporate the NLSA Model Scheme. As things stood, the West Bengal Scheme prevailed, and disbursement to adult victims was governed by Clause 6(4), which carries no restriction on utilisation.

The Single Judge concluded that the SLSA had no authority to control or monitor the amount of compensation disbursed to a victim who had attained majority, and that the victim had every right to decide how to spend the compensation for her rehabilitation after suffering the trauma of the offence. Both writ petitions were allowed and both SLSA orders were set aside.

The Division Bench's Reasoning on Appeal

When the appeals were admitted, a Coordinate Bench had stayed the Single Judge's judgment by orders dated 28 September 2020. That stay remained in operation until the Division Bench decided the matter. Rather than taking up the SLSA's modification applications separately, the Bench chose to hear the appeals on their merits with the consent of the parties.

The Division Bench found no apparent infirmity in the Single Judge's judgment. It endorsed the Single Judge's reasoning in full.

On the specific issue of selective borrowing from the NLSA Scheme, the Division Bench was direct. The West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme does not authorise any authority to restrict how a victim uses the compensation. The Member-Secretary could not have relied on the NLSA Scheme to impose the 75 per cent fixed deposit condition — and certainly not while importing only the restrictive clause without the accompanying features. The NLSA Scheme prescribes a higher maximum compensation than the West Bengal Scheme, and its fixed deposit requirement runs for a minimum of only 3 years, subject to exceptions for specified needs. Imposing a 10-year lock while offering lower compensation was internally inconsistent.

Although the Supreme Court in Nipun Saxena had directed all States to implement the NLSA Model Scheme, West Bengal had not yet amended its own Scheme to incorporate it. Until that is done, the West Bengal Scheme governs, and that Scheme carries no disbursement restriction for adult victims.

On the broader principle, the Division Bench agreed with the Single Judge's observation about what it called the “Big Brother” approach. The Bench held that the right to commit a mistake inheres in the right to personal liberty and freedom, and cannot be curtailed arbitrarily by the SLSA merely because it administers the compensation fund. A victim must be free to decide how the compensation money is spent, according to her own judgment.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed both appeals — MAT 509 of 2020 and MAT 510 of 2020. All connected applications were disposed of. The interim stay that had been operating since 28 September 2020 was vacated. No order was made as to costs.

The practical effect is that the SLSA orders directing Achiya Bibi and Supiya Bibi to deposit 75 per cent of their compensation awards in a Monthly Income Scheme for 10 years stand set aside, restoring the Single Judge's directions of 11 March 2020.