Benefits Under Central Assistance Scheme Can't Be Denied To Victims Of Terrorism Solely Because Incident Occurred Before Its Official Launch: J&K High Court

In allowing a plea for compensation under the scheme Justice Sindhu Sharma observed,

“The only issue is there guidelines provide for incidence that are operative from 01.04.2008, the death have occurred in 2007 and this scheme to being assist the civilian victim of terrorist violence, the benefit of the same cannot be denied to the petitioners who were unable to seek any compensation for the death of their children. The petitioners cannot be denied the benefit of the scheme.”.

These observations stemmed from a petition filed by Yaar Mohammad Kataria and another resident of Jammu and Kashmir. Their sons had died in 2007 due to a blast caused by an unexploded shell lying in a forest area.

Seeking compensation the petitioners contended that their children's deaths resulted from the respondents' negligence in failing to properly secure the area and remove unexploded ordnance. They argued that the blast, likely caused by an IED or leftover ammunition, should qualify for compensation under the CSACV.

The respondents, however, contested the petitioners' claims. They denied any involvement in the incident and maintained that the blast could have been caused by an IED planted by anti-national elements. Additionally, they argued that the petition was delayed and that the CSACV, implemented in 2022, was not applicable to pre-existing incidents.

Upon meticulous examination of the case, the bench cut through these objections and acknowledged the tragic incident and the undeniable loss suffered by the petitioners. The court emphasized the duty of the state to protect its citizens and their property and underscored the rights of victims, regardless of the temporal alignment of governmental assistance schemes.

Taking note of the revised Guidelines of the Central Scheme for Assistance to Civilian Victims/Family of Victims of Terrorism 2022 the bench clarified that despite the incident predating the operational timeline of the scheme, the same could not impede petitioners' inability to seek compensation.

“In view of this revised scheme, the petitioners are entitled to an amount as stated in Clause-2 of the guidelines of financial assistance. This scheme does not bar in raising of a claim for compensation even after the lapse of considerable period of delay”, the bench remarked.

Considering the revised scheme and the petitioners' eligibility, Justice Sharma ruled in their favor and both the petitioners are held entitled to compensation as per the Revised Guidelines of the CSACV of the manner as set up in Clause-2 of the Revised Guidelines.

Case Title: Yaar Mohammad Kataria & anr V/s Union of India & ors.

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 104

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment