Empowering Victims in India: Legislative, Judicial, and Human Rights Measures

India’s criminal justice system has historically been built around the offender – investigating the crime, prosecuting the accused, and delivering punishment. The victim, in contrast, was reduced to the role of a witness, with little to no formal say in the proceedings. Over the past few decades, however, a significant shift has taken place. Through legislative amendments, judicial activism, institutional mechanisms, and the tireless work of civil society, India has been building a framework that places victim empowerment at the centre of justice. This post examines the key pillars of that framework and what they mean in practice.

The legislative foundation: from discretion to entitlement 🔗

For most of independent India’s legal history, victim compensation existed as a discretionary power of the courts rather than a guaranteed right. Section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), 1973 allowed courts to direct an accused to pay compensation to the victim out of any fine imposed, or even independently of a fine under Section 357(3). However, this power was rarely exercised, and compensation was contingent on the accused being convicted – leaving victims stranded in cases that ended in acquittal or where the offender was never identified.

The turning point came with the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2008, which introduced two watershed provisions. First, it defined “victim” in law for the first time under Section 2(wa) – a seemingly basic step that had major practical consequences, since it formally recognised victims as participants in the criminal process rather than mere informants. Second, and more importantly, it inserted Section 357A, which shifted the responsibility for compensation from the offender to the state. Every State Government, in coordination with the Central Government, was now mandated to prepare a Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS) to provide funds for rehabilitation of victims who have suffered loss or injury.

Section 357A addressed several gaps that Section 357 had left open. Under Section 357A(4), even in cases where no trial takes place and the offender is not traced or identified, the victim or their dependents can apply directly to the State or District Legal Services Authority for compensation. Section 357A(6) allows the Legal Services Authority to order immediate first-aid or medical benefits free of cost as interim relief – meaning victims no longer have to wait until the end of a lengthy trial to access support. This marked a historic shift from an offender-centric to a victim-centric justice model.

The Malimath Committee Report of 2003 and the Law Commission’s 154th Report (1996) were instrumental in pushing for these changes, recommending expansion of victim rights, prevention of secondary victimisation, and state accountability in delivering compensation. More recently, the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the CrPC and came into force on 1 July 2024, codified these developments under Sections 395 and 396, institutionalising state-funded victim compensation within India’s reformed criminal justice architecture.

Special laws targeting specific categories of victims 🔗

Beyond the procedural code, Parliament has enacted several targeted statutes that go further in protecting and empowering particular groups of victims. These laws embed victim support directly into their framework rather than treating it as an add-on.

The POCSO Act, 2012 🔗

The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, 2012 is widely regarded as a benchmark for victim-centric legislation in India. It applies to all children under 18 regardless of gender and covers the full spectrum of sexual offences, from penetrative assault to harassment and exploitation for pornography. What makes POCSO significant from a victim empowerment standpoint is how deeply it integrates protection at every stage of the process. Statements are recorded at the child’s home, preferably by a female police officer. Trials are conducted in-camera before Special Courts. The child’s identity is kept confidential throughout proceedings. Confrontations with the accused are minimised. Special Courts are also empowered to determine compensation for the child’s medical treatment and rehabilitation, and interim relief can be ordered at any stage after registration of the FIR. The POCSO Rules, 2020 further introduced the concept of a “support person” – a trained individual who accompanies the child through investigation and trial, monitors their wellbeing, and ensures continuity of education and psychological care.

Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 – the Nirbhaya Act 🔗

Following the December 2012 Delhi gang rape case, the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 overhauled the legal framework for sexual offences. It broadened the definition of rape, criminalised acid attacks as a distinct offence, mandated medical examination of rape victims for evidence collection, and introduced speedier trial timelines. The 2018 amendment went further, establishing Fast Track Special Courts (FTSCs) – by May 2023, 758 such courts, including 412 exclusive POCSO courts, were functional across 29 states and union territories, having disposed of over 1.69 lakh cases since inception.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 🔗

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (PWDVA), 2005 was a landmark civil law that moved beyond criminal punishment to focus on immediate, practical relief for victims of domestic abuse. It provides for protection orders, residence orders (allowing a woman to stay in the shared household regardless of ownership), monetary relief, custody orders, and compensation. Protection Officers appointed under the Act serve as the link between the victim and the court, helping file applications and ensuring compliance with orders. The Act acknowledged that for many victims of domestic violence, keeping a roof over their head and financial support matter as much as – if not more than – seeing the offender prosecuted.

SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 🔗

The Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 was enacted to fill a gap that the IPC and existing civil rights laws left open – providing dedicated protection against caste-based violence and indignity. It mandates compensation and rehabilitation to victims of atrocities, establishes Special Courts and Exclusive Special Courts for speedy trial, and requires states to set up relief camps and provide relief to affected families. The Act was significantly strengthened by the 2015 and 2016 amendments, which added new offences, restricted anticipatory bail for the accused, and created a more responsive protection mechanism for victims from marginalised communities.

The judiciary as a driver of victim rights 🔗

Even where legislation lagged, India’s higher judiciary stepped in to fill critical gaps. Several landmark judgments have expanded the scope of victim rights and established important precedents.

In Rudul Sah v. State of Bihar (1983), the Supreme Court awarded monetary compensation for unlawful detention under a habeas corpus petition – establishing for the first time that the State could be held directly liable for violating a citizen’s fundamental rights under Article 21 of the Constitution. This principle was further developed in Nilabati Behera v. State of Orissa (1993), where the Court affirmed that compensation for custodial death is enforceable as a constitutional remedy distinct from private law claims. These decisions laid the groundwork for courts to award compensation for human rights violations independently of ordinary civil litigation.

In Hari Krishan v. Sukhbir Singh (1988), the Supreme Court held that the power to award compensation under Section 357 CrPC is not an ancillary or optional exercise – it is an integral part of sentencing, and courts are expected to apply their minds to it in every criminal case and provide reasons if they decline to award it. In Ankush Shivaji Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra (2013), this duty was reiterated categorically, with the Court laying down guidelines on factors to consider – the gravity of the offence, physical and mental harm to the victim, loss suffered, and the accused’s capacity to pay.

Laxmi v. Union of India (2015) directed states to formulate compensation schemes specifically for acid attack victims and regulate the open sale of acid. Delhi Domestic Working Women’s Forum v. Union of India directed that rape victims be provided with legal representation, and Sakshi v. Union of India (2004) pushed for child-friendly procedures in sexual assault cases – principles that were later absorbed into the POCSO Act. Most recently, in Jagdish Singh v. Ashish Mishra, the Supreme Court categorically recognised the victim’s right to participate in criminal proceedings as a stakeholder in the process, not merely as a witness.

Human rights institutions: the NHRC and State Commissions 🔗

The National Human Rights Commission (NHRC), established on 12 October 1993 under the Protection of Human Rights Act (PHRA), 1993, is India’s apex statutory body for addressing human rights violations. A victim – or any person on the victim’s behalf – can bring a complaint before the NHRC. The Commission can also act suo motu (on its own initiative). It has the powers of a civil court during inquiries – it can summon witnesses, requisition public records, and examine evidence on oath. Crucially, it is empowered to recommend compensation or damages to victims, recommend legal proceedings against guilty public servants, and direct immediate interim relief to be provided by the state.

The NHRC has intervened in several high-profile matters – from custodial deaths and alleged fake encounters to prison conditions and displacement of communities. It has advocated for legislative reforms, contributed to the enactment of the Sexual Harassment of Women at Workplace Act, 2013, and engaged in systematic documentation of human rights violations. Under Section 12(i) of the PHRA, the NHRC is also mandated to actively support and encourage NGOs and civil society organisations working in the human rights space. It has set up a focal point for Human Rights Defenders (HRDs) and written to Chief Secretaries of all states to ensure that defenders are not victimised for their work.

State Human Rights Commissions (SHRCs) operate at the state level, handling complaints that fall within state jurisdiction and providing a decentralised forum for victims who may not easily access the NHRC in Delhi. The National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) and District Legal Services Authorities (DLSAs) play a complementary role, providing free legal aid to victims, administering Victim Compensation Schemes, and ordering interim relief under Section 357A – making justice accessible to those who cannot afford legal representation.

The role of civil society in victim empowerment 🔗

Statutory institutions can only do so much if people are unaware of their rights or too intimidated to exercise them. This is where civil society organisations – NGOs, legal aid clinics, advocacy groups, and human rights defenders – become indispensable. NGOs have filed writ petitions and Public Interest Litigations on behalf of victims, fought cases of bonded labour, custodial violence, fake encounters, and violations of women’s and children’s rights, and successfully obtained compensation orders from courts.

Organisations like the Lawyers Collective have worked to make laws accessible to judges, prosecutors, police, and the general public through training and legal literacy campaigns. The International Foundation for Crime Prevention and Victim Care (PCVC) runs a national domestic violence helpline, offering crisis management and legal advocacy. SEWA (Self Employed Women’s Association), operating since 1972, secures rights for women in the unorganised sector using collective bargaining and non-violent advocacy – critical for a workforce where over 94% of women remain outside formal legal protections. CRY (Child Rights and You) raises awareness about the POCSO Act and assists children in accessing protection and rehabilitation.

NGOs also serve a critical documentation and accountability function – collecting data on human rights violations, publishing reports that inform legislative reform, and ensuring that cases reach the NHRC and courts. As the NHRC has acknowledged before the UN Human Rights Council, without the active involvement of NGOs and civil society, the human rights protection system in India would be far less effective.

International frameworks and their domestic influence 🔗

India’s victim empowerment measures have also been shaped by international commitments. The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985 was the first international document recognising victims’ rights to access justice, restitution, and social assistance. India, as a signatory to multiple UN human rights instruments, has used these frameworks as benchmarks. The UN Declaration’s principles – that victims should be treated with respect, informed of proceedings, protected from further harm, and provided with material, psychological, and social assistance – have been progressively absorbed into Indian legislation through successive amendments and judicial directions.

Persistent gaps and the road ahead 🔗

Despite the progress, implementation continues to be uneven. Victim Compensation Schemes vary widely across states in terms of quantum, eligibility criteria, and actual disbursement. State funds remain underutilised in several jurisdictions. Many victims – especially those from marginalised communities, rural areas, or informal employment – are unaware that these mechanisms exist. The gap between progressive legislative intent and ground-level implementation remains the central challenge in India’s victim empowerment journey. There is a growing consensus among legal scholars and reform advocates for a centralised National Victim Compensation Fund, uniform standards across states, mandatory psychological support as part of rehabilitation, and enhanced collaboration between Legal Services Authorities, healthcare providers, and NGOs.

What do you think? Should India move toward a centralised, uniform victim compensation system, or is the current state-based approach better suited to local realities? And given that awareness remains one of the biggest barriers to access, what concrete steps can law enforcement, courts, and civil society take together to ensure victims actually know and claim their rights?

References

1. https://chambers.com/articles/victim-compensation-laws-in-india
2. https://juriscentre.com/2025/04/14/victim-compensation/
3. https://cdnbbsr.s3waas.gov.in/s37a68443f5c80d181c42967cd71612af1/uploads/2025/03/20250319598301777.pdf
4. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2023.2286071
5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_of_Children_from_Sexual_Offences_Act
6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4557243/
7. https://acr-journal.com/article/victim-centric-governance-in-the-criminal-justice-system-policy-and-practice-analysis-with-special-reference-to-india-1922/
8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scheduled_Caste_and_Scheduled_Tribe_(Prevention_of_Atrocities)_Act,_1989
9. https://www.ijcrt.org/papers/IJCRT2511249.pdf
10. https://uppcsmagazine.com/role-of-the-national-human-rights-commission-nhrc-in-india/
11. https://kpiasacademy.com/national-human-rights-commission-nhrc/
12. https://www.gapinterdisciplinarities.org/res/articles/(399-402).pdf
13. https://www.ohchr.org/sites/default/files/Documents/AboutUs/CivilSociety/Procedures/NHRI/IndiaNHRC.pdf
14. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/VICTIMOLOGY-AND-THE-INDIAN-CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-SYSTEM-ASSESSING-COMPENSATION-AND-REHABILITATION-MEASURES.pdf