SC Slaps Rs. 25,000-fine On Centre For Failure To File Affidavit On Steps Taken To Prevent, Compensate Sexual Assaults [Read Order]

The Supreme Court, in the case of Nipun Saxena vs Union of India, has slapped a fine of Rs. 25,000 on the Centre for its failure to file an affidavit on the steps taken to prevent and compensate sexual assaults.

On April 17, the Centre was directed to file an affidavit by July 4, regarding its role in curbing and compensating sexual assault. The Supreme Court had directed the Centre to collect information from all states and union territories regarding the amount disbursed to victims of sexual assaults, setting up of one-stop crisis centres, witness protection programmes, and regulation of taxi service providers like Uber and Ola.

However, nearly after a month of non-filing of the affidavit, a bench comprising Justice Madan B Lokur, Justice Prafulla C Pant and Justice Deepak Gupta granted the Centre the last opportunity to file the affidavit within four weeks from the date of the order.

The bench further directed the Centre to deposit Rs. 25,000 with the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.

Further, it observed that the Centre should monitor the victim compensation schemes announced by various state governments and union territories, and submit a report on the same, along with the affidavit.

Advocate Nipun Saxena had filed the PIL to introduce certain measures for the safety of women in public transport and public places, in December 2012, subsequent to the Nirbhaya gang-rape incident.

These measures included the installation of GPS system and high security registration plate with maintenance of log book of all the destinations covered by such public transport vehicles, encouragement to employ more women as bus driver/bus conductor and also to start taxi/auto service with women under wheels, to allot booths/small shops and the bus stand/railway station/ shopping malls and all along the major roads in the city to women who had earlier police/ army/ paramilitary background to boost the confidence of the women, to revive the system of appointment of honorary magistrate from the people of repute to check the functioning of proper transport system and also to give the power and jurisdiction to them to issue challans, etc. in the event of finding violations of rules on the road, a direction/suggestion to the Ministry of Women and Child Welfare Development to encourage the participation of elderly people like grandparents in the families of those where both the parents are working employees, and a direction/suggestion to the Ministry of Home Affairs and its police department to revive the age-old practices of beat constables which has recently been substituted by patrolling by the police vehicles (mobile PCR) for the reason that the beat constables are more effecting in gathering the intelligence/inputs of bad characters of the area and checking them in their ulterior motive and to boost confidence among the masses about the law and order situation.

The PIL was clubbed with five related writ petitions seeking effective steps to be taken by the Centre and the states to take steps to curb sexual assault, with senior advocate Indira Jaising acting as the amicus curiae.

In January 2013, an RTI application was filed by Saxena before the National Legal Services Authority, the response to which revealed that though Section 357A of the Code of Criminal Procedure was inserted by an amendment to the Code in 2009 to enable the court to direct the state to pay compensation to the victim if the compensation under Section 357 was inadequate or where the case ended in acquittal or discharge and the victim was required to be rehabilitated, compensation was awarded and received by the victim/ dependants in only eight cases till February 2013.

This was after a lapse of over 4 years since the incorporation of the amendment in 2009. Furthermore, many states and union territories did not even have in place such a scheme for the victim’s compensation.

An interim application was filed by Saxena in 2016, stating that during the course of time between the filing of the PIL and the interim applications, many states had taken steps to address the issues raised by the petitioner.

However, though 25 out of 29 state governments had notified the schemes, there was a complete lack of uniformity in the said schemes and the states had neither indicated whether appropriate funds had been allocated in pursuance to the notification of the said schemes nor the number of victims compensated under such schemes.