Seeking Justice for Victims in India: A Legal and Social Perspective

When a crime takes place, the law swiftly focuses on the accused – their rights, their bail, their trial. But what about the person at the centre of it all: the victim? In India, for decades, victims were little more than witnesses in the very case that concerned them most. They were sidelined, uncompensated, uninformed, and often re-traumatised by the very system meant to deliver them justice. That is slowly changing – but the road from acknowledgment to real justice has been long, complicated, and is still far from complete.

Who is a “victim” under Indian law? 🔗

The definition matters more than it seems. Under Section 2(wa) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), a victim is defined as a person who has suffered any loss or injury caused by reason of the act or omission for which the accused has been charged – and importantly, the term includes the guardian or legal heir of such a person. This means families of deceased victims are also legally recognised as victims entitled to relief.

The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power, 1985 – often called the “Magna Carta” for victims – casts the net even wider. It defines a victim as anyone who has suffered physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss, or a violation of their fundamental rights through acts that violate national criminal laws. This international benchmark has served as the reference point for evaluating how well India’s domestic framework measures up.

The constitutional foundation of victim justice 🔗

India’s Constitution does not have an explicit chapter on victims’ rights – but several provisions collectively form the constitutional basis for victim protection. Articles 14 and 21, which guarantee equality before law and protection of life and personal liberty, are the most invoked provisions in this context. Courts have used Article 21 to compel the State to compensate victims when it has failed to protect their life, dignity, or liberty.

These provisions must be read alongside the Directive Principles of State Policy – particularly Article 39A, which mandates the State to provide free legal assistance and ensure equal opportunity in accessing justice. Article 41 recognises the State’s obligation to provide public assistance in cases of disablement and undeserved want, while Article 51-A reinforces the duty to promote humanism. Together, these provisions have been used by courts to build a constitutional case for victim compensation and support.

Justice Krishna Iyer famously noted in Rattan Singh v. State of Punjab that it is a weakness of Indian jurisprudence that the distress of victims and their dependants does not attract sufficient attention from the law. That observation, made decades ago, still resonates today.

The evolution of victim rights in legislation 🔗

India’s legislative journey toward victim-centric justice has been gradual and largely reactive – driven by judicial direction and committee recommendations rather than proactive reform.

Section 357 CrPC: The starting point 🔗

Section 357 of the CrPC was the first significant legislative provision for victim compensation. It allowed courts to order compensation from fines imposed on the offender. The provision was narrow – compensation was only possible if a fine had been levied – and courts were not obligated to grant it. Over time, the Supreme Court directed that Section 357 should be interpreted liberally, and courts must record reasons if they choose not to award compensation.

Section 357A: A landmark shift 🔗

The real turning point came with Section 357A, introduced through the CrPC Amendment Act of 2008. It mandated every State Government to prepare a Victim Compensation Scheme (VCS) in coordination with the Central Government. Under this provision, even when an offender is not identified, acquitted, or unable to pay, the victim or their dependants can apply directly to the State or District Legal Services Authority (SLSA/DLSA) for compensation. The DLSA is required to complete its enquiry and, if satisfied, award compensation within two months.

This was transformative because it recognised – for the first time – that the obligation to compensate a victim rests with the State, not just the offender. The Malimath Committee (2003) had explicitly recommended this position: that victim compensation is a State obligation in all serious crimes, regardless of whether the offender is apprehended or convicted.

Participatory rights for victims 🔗

The 2008 Amendment also gave victims the right to engage their own private advocate to assist the Public Prosecutor during trial under Section 24(8) of the CrPC. Before this, victims had no formal voice in court – their interests were entirely entrusted to a State-appointed prosecutor. While this right exists, it remains underutilised because many victims, especially from lower-income backgrounds, are unaware of it or cannot afford additional legal representation.

The international framework: The UN Declaration of 1985 🔗

The UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power recognises four core rights for victims: access to justice and fair treatment; restitution; compensation; and assistance. This declaration is not a binding treaty, but it serves as an international standard against which national legal systems are measured. India’s framework, particularly since the 2008 Amendment, has moved closer to these standards – though significant gaps remain in implementation.

Retributive vs. compensatory justice 🔗

The Indian criminal justice system has historically been oriented toward retributive justice – punishing the offender as a response to crime. While this serves a social purpose, it provides little direct relief to the victim. Punishing the accused does not repair broken lives, restore lost income, or address psychological trauma.

Compensatory justice, on the other hand, focuses on restoring the victim’s position as far as possible. The Supreme Court articulated this clearly in Bodhisattwa Gautam v. Subhra Chakraborty, where it ordered the accused to pay interim maintenance to the victim even during the pendency of the case – a recognition that justice cannot wait for a final verdict when a victim is suffering in real time. Courts have also invoked Article 21 to direct monetary compensation and rehabilitative support in cases where the State has failed to protect citizens.

True justice for victims requires both dimensions. Retribution satisfies the public demand for accountability; compensation acknowledges the concrete harm done to the individual. The challenge for India’s criminal justice system is to balance these without one eclipsing the other.

Key committee recommendations and their impact 🔗

Several committees have shaped the victim justice landscape in India through their recommendations.

Law Commission of India (154th Report, 1996) 🔗

The 154th Law Commission Report was the first to formally propose a victim-oriented perspective for the Indian CrPC. It noted that crimes cause substantial harm to individuals – not merely symbolic harm to society – and recommended that victims’ needs and rights receive priority attention. The Commission’s advocacy for victim participation in criminal proceedings laid the groundwork for later legislative reforms.

Malimath Committee (2003) 🔗

The Malimath Committee was constituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs to comprehensively examine criminal justice reform. Its report was candid in observing that victims feel ignored and are crying for attention and justice. Among its key recommendations were: creating a Victim Compensation Fund under the Legal Services Authority; recognising victim compensation as a State obligation irrespective of whether the offender is convicted; allowing victims to appeal against inadequate compensation; and measures to prevent secondary victimisation during trial. Many of these recommendations were eventually incorporated into the 2008 CrPC Amendment.

Law Commission Report No. 226 (2009) 🔗

This report specifically addressed compensation for acid attack survivors and recommended the establishment of Criminal Injuries Compensation Boards at the central, state, and district levels to ensure compensatory justice for victims of violent crimes. It also recommended that compensation not be limited to fines, forfeitures, and penalties.

Madhav Menon Committee (2007) 🔗

The Madhav Menon Committee was tasked with drafting a national policy on criminal justice. It emphasised the need to ensure respect for human dignity and human rights at every stage of the criminal justice process – a principle that directly encompasses the treatment of victims from the moment they report a crime to the police through to post-trial relief.

The Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023: What has changed? 🔗

The most recent development in India’s criminal procedure law is the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, which replaced the CrPC and came into effect on 1 July 2024. In terms of victim rights, the BNSS brings several meaningful improvements. It gives victims free access to the FIR, mandates regular updates on the investigation within 90 days, and requires that police provide victims with comprehensive case details including police reports and witness statements. Crucially, Clause 360 of the BNSS requires the victim’s participation before a prosecutor can withdraw a case punishable with seven or more years of imprisonment – a significant check on the State’s discretion that directly empowers victims.

The very renaming of the operative law from “Danda” (punishment) to “Nyaya” (justice) in the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita is often cited as signalling a philosophical shift – from punitive to restorative jurisprudence. Whether that shift is substantive or largely symbolic remains a matter of ongoing debate among legal scholars.

Challenges that persist 🔗

Despite legislative progress, victims in India continue to face serious structural and systemic challenges. The implementation of Victim Compensation Schemes remains deeply inconsistent across states – funds are often inadequate, applications pile up pending, and victims, particularly those from marginalised communities, lack awareness about their entitlements. As per available data, over 11,000 applications under victim compensation schemes were pending in 2019-20 alone.

Judicial delays compound the problem. Cases stretching for years leave victims in prolonged uncertainty, their daily lives disrupted by the very process that is supposed to restore normalcy. Witnesses turning hostile – often due to intimidation or lack of protection – undermines both the prosecution’s case and the victim’s quest for justice. Secondary victimisation – the re-traumatisation of victims through hostile cross-examination, public exposure, or social stigma – remains inadequately addressed by the law. India also lacks a dedicated statute consolidating all victim rights in one place, which creates fragmentation and confusion in enforcement.

The path ahead 🔗

Legal scholars and reform advocates have pointed to several measures that could meaningfully advance victim justice in India. A dedicated Victims’ Rights Act – drawing from the UN Declaration of 1985 – would consolidate rights related to compensation, rehabilitation, privacy, legal aid, and participation in a single enforceable statute. A National Victim Compensation Fund, financed through fines, forfeitures, court fees, and corporate social responsibility contributions, could ensure consistent financial relief across states. Greater integration of psychological counselling, trauma support, and witness protection into the criminal process would address the human dimensions of crime that financial compensation alone cannot cover. And community-based approaches to justice – including restorative justice mechanisms – can give victims a meaningful voice in determining the outcome of matters that directly affect them.

What do you think? India’s criminal justice system has historically centred on punishing the offender – but does punishing the accused alone constitute justice for the victim? And given the persistent gap between the rights that exist on paper and those that victims can actually access, what reforms would make the most practical difference to a crime victim’s experience in India today?

References

1. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-5591-rights-of-victims-in-indian-criminal-justice-system.html
2. https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/victimsofcrimeandabuseofpower.aspx
3. https://lawbhoomi.com/rights-of-victims-in-india/
4. https://blog.ipleaders.in/victims-rights-under-the-indian-criminal-law-system/
5. https://ijlmh.com/paper/victim-rights-in-india-is-the-focus-of-the-criminal-justice-system-shifting-from-the-accused-to-the-victim/
6. https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=6a02687b-b95a-498f-91ce-a0053747e0c7
7. https://www.unafei.or.jp/publications/pdf/RS_No81/No81_11VE_Chockalingam.pdf
8. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311983.2023.2286071
9. https://p39ablog.com/2023/11/criminal-law-bills-2023-decoded-13-victims-rights/
10. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/reforming-country-s-criminal-justice-system
11. https://www.verdictum.in/columns/column-victim-centric-justice-in-new-criminal-laws-1512848
12. https://ijirl.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/VICTIMOLOGY-AND-THE-INDIAN-CRIMINAL-JUSTICE-SYSTEM-ASSESSING-COMPENSATION-AND-REHABILITATION-MEASURES.pdf