The Lucknow Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, comprising Justice Shekhar B. Saraf and Justice Prashant Kumar has allowed a writ petition filed by a minor rape victim, ordering the payment of statutory compensation and imposing an additional Rs. 2 lakhs compensation for the “inordinate delay” by authorities. The Court criticized the “egregious procrastination” and “reprehensible inaction” of the officials responsible for disbursing funds under the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015.
The judgment was delivered on October 27, 2025, in WRIT-C No. 9042 of 2025, filed by ‘Victim X’ through her father.
Background of the Case
The factual matrix detailed in the judgment indicates that the incident of rape with the petitioner occurred on May 8, 2025, and the First Information Report (FIR) was registered the same day. A charge sheet was subsequently filed on June 25, 2025.
The petitioner filed the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeking a writ of Mandamus to direct the opposite parties, including the Principal Secretary of the Women Welfare Department (Respondent no. 2), to pay the compensation she is entitled to under the 2015 Rules.
Submissions and Compensation Rules
The counsel for the petitioner, Mohammad Irfan Siddiqui, submitted that the petitioner is entitled to compensation as per the Uttar Pradesh Rani Lakshmi Bai Mahila Samman Kosh Rules, 2015.
The Court noted that Annexure-1 (serial no. 6) of the said Rules stipulates that a victim of such a crime is entitled to Rs. 3 lakhs. This amount is to be paid in two installments: the first installment of Rs. 1 lakh within 15 days of the charge sheet being filed, and the balance of Rs. 2 lakhs within one month of the charge sheet.
Based on the charge sheet date of June 25, 2025, the Court observed that “the entire payment of Rs. 3 lakhs should have been made within a period of one month from that date.”
However, the victim received no payment, compelling her to file the writ petition on September 9, 2025. The counsel for the respondents (C.S.C.) submitted that officials sought the victim’s bank account number on September 14, 2025 (five days after the petition was filed), which the victim provided on October 16, 2025.
The Court recorded that as of the hearing on October 27, 2025, “not a single penny has been received by the petitioner/victim.”
Court’s Analysis and Observations
The Division Bench expressed strong disapproval of the delay and the authorities’ conduct. The Court found it “indeed astounding” that the victim was “forced to file this writ petition… for non payment of any of the said installments.”
The judgment stated, “One is unable to understand the apathy of the police officers/statutory authorities, who are required to make this payment under the beneficial scheme provided by the State Government.”
Highlighting the purpose of the compensation, the Bench observed, “The entire purpose of providing the compensation to the victims of such a gruesome crime is that the pain of the victim can be soothed urgently and the financial exigency relating to medical treatment may be addressed immediately.”
The Court further noted the severe impact of such crimes and the compounding effect of administrative delays. “It is to be noted that such victims not only go through physical pain and anguish but also suffer severe mental trauma,” the judgment reads. “The very act of delaying payments under such beneficial legislation, further adds to the agony and exacerbates the pain and suffering of the victim.”
The Bench also observed that the delay forced the victim to incur further costs: “The fact that the victim has to further incur costs to file a writ petition for obtaining the compensation that she is entitled to under the law augments the very ordeal that the victim has suffered.”
Concluding its analysis, the Court held that accountability must be fixed. “In light of above observations, we are of the view that the officials, who are responsible for the egregious procrastination, should be held responsible and accountability should be fastened on them,” the Court stated. “We are of the view that the reprehensible inaction and laissez faire attitude of the officials concerned requires costs to be imposed on them.”
The Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition and issued the following directions:
- Respondent no. 2 is directed to make the payment of Rs. 3 lakhs (if not already paid) within a period of 3 days from the date of the order.
- A further sum of Rs. 2 lakhs is to be paid within 15 days as “additional compensation for the inordinate delay in making payment to the victim.”
- The Court granted liberty to the State Government “to deduct the said amount of Rs. 2 lakhs from the person(s), who are responsible for the said delay and take departmental action against them.”
