On Victim Compensation and Religious Freedom
The article outlines the development of state rehabilitation packages for victims of communal riots in India. It explores key judgments that provide a legal framework for such compensation.
- The Communal Violence Bills
- Judicial Response to Victim Compensation in Communal Riots
- Compensation schemes for victims of communal riots in India
- Conclusion and Recommendations
“If religion is separated from politics then we can all come together in politics even if we belong to different religions,” wrote Bhagat Singh.[i]
Bhagat Singh’s article, which was published in the June 1927 issue of a local magazine called “Kirti,” summarises the problem of communal rioting in India. It is unfortunate that even after 93 years of the article being published, India continues to grapple with the same problem. Bhagat Singh identifies three root causes of communal riots in India, namely communal leaders, provocative newspapers and the poor economic condition of the people.
He goes on to unravel the solution to this problem as “class-consciousness.” He admiringly points out the example of the Calcutta mill workers who chose not to participate in the communal riots in Calcutta but instead understood what is most beneficial for their class. It was to maintain peace in the mills and work together despite their religious differences so that they could be free from their capitalist colonisers.
The framers of our Constitution foresaw the dangers of communalism in India and as a result, “religion” was a widely discussed topic in the Constituent Assembly debates. Almost all members of the Assembly agreed on the need to separate religion from State for a democracy to thrive.[ii] Therefore, many wonder why Dr. B.R. Ambedkar rejected the amendment suggested by Professor K.T. Shah to add the term “secular” in the preamble of the Constitution. The answer lies in his response: “the amendment is purely superfluous, since these socialist principles are already embodied in our Constitution, it is unnecessary to accept this amendment”.[iii] Nevertheless, the term “secular” was formally inserted into the preamble when the 42nd Amendment to the Constitution of India was passed in 1976.
So, even though the Communal Violence (Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill never passed and we still do not have an Act dedicated to the issue, there are ample safeguards in the Constitution that protect the citizens of India from the repercussions of communal violence.
The preamble to the Indian Constitution embodies these core values which manifest in all the articles of the Constitution. But it was also important that they reflected in subsequent legislations[iv] so that these values don’t erode over time. One of these core values that the people of India are guaranteed is Justice. It is further broadened into three forms of justice, namely social, economic and political.
Rehabilitation and compensation to victims of communal violence is an example of all the three forms of justice that is enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution because it is restorative, compensatory and equitable in nature. In Part III of the Constitution entitled “Fundamental Rights,” these values become enforceable human rights that make it the duty of the State – executive, legislature and judiciary – to protect the life and livelihood of all persons in India[v] equally[vi] and without any form of discrimination[vii]. So, it is indeed the constitutional duty of the State to protect the property of the people living in India.[viii]
And with rights come duties. The Constitution states that it is the duty of every citizen to uphold and protect the unity of India and promote harmony and a spirit of common brotherhood transcending religious, linguistic, regional and sectional diversities.[ix]
The Communal Violence Bills
In a democracy like India where the legislature is composed of elected leaders, it is difficult to ascertain whether these legislators are sincere about the interests of the people or merely want popularity as elections approach. This is evident from the fact that although a Communal Violence (Prevention and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill was tabled in the Lok Sabha and the Rajya Sabha several times – in 2005, 2011 and finally in 2013 – it never came to fruition and was finally withdrawn by the Rajya Sabha in 2014. [x]
The first Bill was called The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005. It was introduced in the Parliament the same year upon the insistence of several human rights agencies and advocates who wanted the rehabilitation of the victims of the barbarous 2002 Godhra riots.[xi]
However, it was criticised on several grounds when those opposing it said that most of these provisions were already present in the existing laws and it is only a matter of effective implementation by the executive. They also said that it gave sweeping powers to the central government to take action if the state governments failed to curb an instance of communal violence. The argument was made that this encroached upon the constitutional principles of federalism. And most importantly, the argument against compensation was that there were no guidelines mentioning the vital aspects of implementation like “when”, “how much” and “by whom”.[xii]
So in 2011, the Bill was slightly amended and tabled with a new title – the Prevention of Communal and Targeted Violence (Access to Justice and Reparation) Bill, 2011. But once again, it received widespread criticism not just by the Opposition but also by public officials because it suggested stringent action against police officers if they failed to curb communal violence. It imposed vicarious liabilities on senior officials if their subordinates failed at their job. The definition of the term “communal violence” in the Bill was also criticised because it restricted the scope of “victims of communal violence” only to the minorities, leaving out the majority community.[xiii]
Thereafter, the 2013 Muzaffarnagar riots in Uttar Pradesh once again galvanised the Parliament to bring back the Bill only to be withdrawn by the Rajya Sabha the following year.[xiv]
Judicial Response to Victim Compensation in Communal Riots
Godhra Riots (2002)
Riots erupted in the state of Gujarat from February to May 2002, following the burning of a train carrying 59 Hindus. The violence that followed claimed the lives of thousands of Muslims and caused loss of property and livelihood. Heinous crimes like rapes, gang-rapes and mutilation of the genitals of Muslim women were carried out during the course of those riots.[xv]
Following that, several petitions were filed in the Supreme Court of India asking it to hold the state of Gujarat and certain Hindu organisations liable for the Godhra riots. Pleas were also made to give relief to the victims in the form of compensation and reopen the relief camps that had been closed before the riot victims were actually rehabilitated. Unfortunately on 7 August 2004, the court disposed of the petitions about compensation and directed the petitioners to approach the Gujarat High Court where similar petitions were pending.[xvi]
Subsequently, the then Chief Minister of Gujarat Narendra Modi, announced a compensation of 2 lakh rupees to the families of the 59 Hindus killed in the train burning incident at Godhra. But only 1 lakh rupees was offered to the families of those who were killed in the retaliatory communal riots that followed.
Eventually though, the central and state governments came together and offered a cumulative compensation of 1.5 lakh rupees to all the bereaved families. But even this came only after human rights advocates pointed out the blatant discrimination in “assisting” the victims of the violence.[xvii]
A compensation of 50,000 rupees was announced for those who had lost their property during the riots. But investigations by NGOs reveal that no compensation was paid to at least 25 percent of the victims. And less than 10 per cent have received a compensation of over 30, 000 rupees.[xviii]
Kandhamal Riots (2008)
Several civil writ petitions[xix] were filed in public interest highlighting the failure of the state of Odisha (then called Orissa) in deploying adequate police force and protecting the life, livelihood and property of several innocent Christians living in the state. Riots erupted in the state after Maoists successfully assassinated Swami Lakshmananda Saraswati and some others on 23 August 2008. All these writ petitions claimed for the following relief:
Setting up of refugee camps for the victims of communal violence;
Providing adequate facilities at these camps;
Providing adequate compensation to the victims;
Preventing communal violence in the future;
Setting up independent commissions to investigate the crimes committed during these riots; and
Setting up special courts for speedy trials of the accused in these riots.
During the hearing of these petitions, the state of Odisha filed an affidavit on 1 March 2016 mentioning the relief and rehabilitation measures taken by the government in favour of the victims. It stated that:
Relief camps were set up in eight different locations to provide immediate relief to the victims. Those who were housed at the camps were safely returned to their villages and the camps were closed on 25 August 2009.
Ex-gratia compensation of 2 lakh rupees was paid from the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund (CMRF) to the next of kin of 39 victims who had died during the riots. The central government paid an additional 3 lakh rupees to the families of 39 people who died in the riots.
The government claimed that a total of 4,822 houses were damaged during the riots out of which 1,506 houses were fully damaged and 3,316 houses were partially damaged. The state government claimed to have given 50,000 rupees for each fully damaged house and 20,000 rupees for each partially damaged house. Additionally, the central government claimed to have given 20,000 rupees for each fully damaged house and 10,000 rupees for each partially damaged house.
Compensation of 2 lakh rupees was reportedly paid to seven churches that were fully damaged during the riots and 1 lakh rupees was paid to five partially damaged churches. Compensation to the tune of 19,45,000 rupees was also reportedly paid by the state government to those whose shops were damaged during the riots.
After considering the extent of loss suffered by the victims, the court ordered that additional compensation be paid to the victims. It said:
An additional compensation of 3 lakh rupees must be paid by the state to the relatives of those who died during the riots;
The state government must pay a compensation of 30,000 rupees to those who suffered grievous injuries and 10,000 rupees to those who suffered simple injuries during the riots; and
The centre and state must cumulatively offer an additional compensation of 70,000 rupees to those who owned houses that were fully damaged and 30,000 rupees to those who owned houses that were partly damaged.
Muzaffarnagar riots (2013)
A Mahapanchayat was organised by the Jat community in Muzaffarnagar, U.P. on 7 September 2013 which was attended by more than 1.5 lakh people from U.P., Haryana and Delhi. They were opposing an incident that took place on 27 August 2013, which resulted in the deaths of three Muslims and three Jats. The incident was given a communal colour to incite passion and as a result, soon after the Mahapanchayat concluded, riots broke out claiming several lives. Heinous offences like rapes took place and several thousands of people, especially Muslims, were injured and displaced from their villages because of the fear and anxiety created by the rioters.[xx]
Several public interest litigations were filed before the Supreme Court demanding compensation and the rehabilitation of the victims of the Muzaffarnagar riots. The petitions also demanded a special investigation team to probe the crimes committed during these riots.
During the course of the hearing in this matter, the state of Uttar Pradesh filed 11 compliance reports detailing the relief measures it had taken based on the numerous directions given by the Supreme Court. It claimed to have:
Established shelter homes and relief camps;
Provided food, clothes and medicines to the victims in these relief camps;
Offered compensation to those who lost their children to the harsh weather conditions while they were in these relief camps; and
Offered compensation to victims of the riots, etc.
The compliance reports stated that:
As many as 58 relief camps were set up at various locations in two of the worst-affected districts – Muzaffarnagar and Shamli;
The families returning to their villages in December 2013 were given rations for 15 days to facilitate resettlement and rehabilitation;
A total of 327 lakh rupees was spent on setting up and running the camps with adequate facilities for over three months; and
Approximately 21 lakh rupees was spent on providing medical care to victims of the riots who were at these relief camps.
To ensure proper sanitation and safe drinking water at the camp, the state government had reportedly:
Deployed five sweepers at each camp;
Made mobile toilets available;
Sprayed pesticides and carried out fogging periodically; and
Installed permanent tubewells near the camps.
Furthermore, the government of Uttar Pradesh sanctioned a compensation of 10 lakh rupees for the relatives of the deceased, 50,000 rupees to those who were seriously injured and 20,000 rupees to those who had simple injuries. And the central government sanctioned ex-gratia relief from the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund at the rate of 2 lakhs rupees to the relatives of the deceased and 50,000 rupees to those who suffered grievous injuries.
The state government also decided to give employment to one member of the family of the deceased according to his or her qualification, in an attempt to rehabilitate the victims’ families.
Regarding the loss of movable and immovable property, the compliance report stated that 298 lakhs rupees were spent in compensating the claims made by the owners of 671 out of the 682 properties damaged during the riots.
After discussing the compensation, the court expressed its regret regarding the incompetence of the state government in protecting women from heinous crimes like rape.
“No compensation can be adequate nor can it be of any respite for the victims but as the State has failed in protecting such serious violation of fundamental rights, the State is duty-bound to provide compensation, which may help in victims' rehabilitation. The humiliation or the reputation that is snuffed out cannot be recompensed but then monetary compensation will at least provide some solace.”
It also held that the survivors of rape should be given a compensation of 5 lakh rupees each accompanied by additional benefits or claims that the victims are entitled to make under section 357 A of the Criminal Procedure Code [xxi] or section 326 A[xxii] or 376 D[xxiii] of the Indian Penal Code, within a period of four weeks.
It directed the state government to give 10 lakh rupees along with an additional 3 lakh as enhanced compensation and for the centre to give 2 lakh rupees from the Prime Minister’s relief fund to the next of kin of the deceased.
It directed the state government to identify the victims who suffered simple or grievous injuries during the riots and pay compensation. It also asked the state government to pay adequate compensation to farmers who lost their crops, cattle tractors and other equipment during the violence.
The UP government was also directed to pay compensation to families who had suffered pecuniary loss on account of movable and immovable property.
The district administration was directed to pay 5 lakh rupees to displaced families who wished to resettle in another village because of fear or anxiety caused by the riots.
Regarding the future course of action in the event of communal tensions in the state, the court said:
“Finally, we reiterate that it is the responsibility of the state administration in association with the intelligence agencies of both the state and centre to prevent such recurrence of communal violence in any part of the state. It is made clear that the officers responsible for maintaining law and order, if found negligent, should be brought under the ambit of law irrespective of their status. It is important that the relief, as enumerated above, not only be provided to all needy families irrespective of their religion but it should also be provided to only genuinely affected families.”[xxiv]
Anti-Sikh Riots (1984)
In Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration through the Lt. Governor 1996 SCC Online Del 484 (Bhajan Kaur’s case), the petitioner moved a civil writ petition before the Delhi High Court praying that the compensation paid to her by the Delhi administration in 1986, two years after she lost her husband in the Anti-Sikh riots in Delhi be enhanced.
According to FIR No. 355/1984, Bhajan Kaur’s husband, Sh. Narain Singh was one of the 26 Sikh passengers on board the Mumbai-Firozpur Janta Express train to be pulled out of the train and killed by a mob of 300 to 350 villagers when it stopped at the Tughlakabad station on 1 November 1984. The anti-Sikh riots began all over the country, with Delhi being the epicenter, after the then Prime Minister Indira Gandhi was assassinated by her own Sikh bodyguards.
In the writ petition, Bhajan Kaur asked that her compensation be increased from 20,000 rupees to 2 lakh rupees on account of her loss.
After hearing both the parties and taking into consideration the compensation paid in the past for loss of life, the court said that family members, particularly widows, of the victims must be paid an enhanced compensation of 2 lakh rupees along with interest from October 1984 to the date of the decision of the Delhi High Court, which accrued at 1.5 lakh rupees. So, the state was to pay an enhanced compensation of 3,30,000 rupees to Bhajan Kaur within a month.
Northeast Delhi Riots (2020)
Riots erupted in north-east Delhi as a result of provocative speeches given by several politicians during and post the anti-CAA protests in the national capital in late 2019[xxv]. As many as 53 people were killed and 748 people were injured. It also caused severe loss of property and livelihood.[xxvi]
According to the data in a charge-sheet filed by the Delhi police in a riots case, the government has settled the claims of 1,661 victims so far and only 185 claims are still pending. To that end, a total compensation of 21 crore rupees has been reportedly disbursed by the Delhi government.[xxvii]
After the riots, the Delhi government had promised to pay a compensation of 10 lakh rupees in cases of death, 5 lakh rupees for permanent incapacitation, 2 lakh rupees for severe injuries and 20,000 rupees for minor injuries. [xxviii]
With respect to property damage, the state government proposed a compensation of 5 lakh rupees for complete damage to residential houses and 2.5 lakh rupees for uninsured commercial units and 5,000 rupees for animal loss.[xxix]
However, several news reports claim that the promised compensation was not paid to the victims.[xxx]
Compensation schemes for victims of communal riots in India
India has international obligations as a signatory of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights casts. This includes the State’s duty, inter alia, to protect the inherent right to life, liberty and security of all people without discrimination of any kind[xxxi] and to provide an effective remedy [xxxii]. But as we have seen, there is neither an effective law that provides for compensation and rehabilitation of victims of communal riots nor is there an effective victim compensation scheme that provides for fixed and reasonable compensation to the victims and survivors.
On the other hand, the compensation that was awarded, if any, to the victims in the cases mentioned above seems to be disproportionate to the loss suffered. There are also several disparities from riot to riot and one victim to the other. It is clear that the compensation proposed in the past for each instance of communal riot was subjective and varied from state to state and even case to case depending on the religious community involved or the number of people injured. Notably, the compensation also varied from state to state depending upon the political parties in power in those states and at the centre at the time of the riots.
It is unfortunate that the compensation at times also varied from victim to victim in the sense that the affluent or influential victims usually received higher compensation compared to those from the lower strata of the society. This was either because of a lack of education or resources to follow through the legal recourse available to them.
However, it is worth noting that a rather inconspicuous National Foundation for Communal Harmony, an autonomous organisation with the Ministry of Home Affairs provides a scheme titled “Project Assist” which seeks to “provide financial assistance to children rendered orphan or destitute in various communal, caste, ethnic or terrorist violence.”[xxxiii] Monetary assistance is provided to children and adults alike, up until the age of 25 years, in the form of scholarships and such.[xxxiv]
An honorary mention is also made regarding section 357 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure which was inserted in the year 2009 to provide compensation to innocent victims, particularly women and children, who are subjected to crimes like rape. the Supreme Court, in Mohd. Haroon and ors. v. Union of India and anr.[xxxv] (Mohd. Haroon’s case), pointed out that women and children are victims of such crimes during communal riots and are eligible to claim compensation under section 357 A.
Conclusion and Recommendations
In light of the above discussion, I would like to make the following recommendations:
Higher Literacy Rates and Creating Awareness: Awareness about rights and duties is the ultimate solution to avoid communal riots in the first place. It serves as the best tool to enable everyone to be self-sufficient in registering police complaints and claim compensation under the schemes proposed by state governments from time to time.
Enacting a Communal Riots (Compensation and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill: It is high time legislators enacted a Communal Violence Bill which clearly states relief measures, rehabilitation and compensation for victims of communal riots on the basis of objective criteria like loss of life, livelihood and property. Furthermore, statutory bodies may be set up under the said Act to conduct an independent inquiry into the compensation claims made by victims in these cases and thereby the matters are disposed of in a speedy and efficient manner.
Promotion of Communal Harmony: Influential methods like drama, theatre and other nation-building activities like observing a “Communal Harmony Day” or “international day for rehabilitation of victims of communal violence” should be encouraged since it promotes dialogue and a healthy discourse among members of different communities.
Shoulder Responsibility: The State must shoulder its responsibility and join hands with private voluntary organisations in conducting an impartial inquiry into the compensation claims made by victims. It will also be useful in efficiently disbursing the funds to these victims. Furthermore, it could undertake relief activities like setting up and maintaining relief camps and proper rehabilitation of the victims in association with voluntary organisations, who are at times better care-givers.
Responsible state actors: The law enforcement agencies like the police and district collectors must act with integrity and take legal action against law-breakers. As observed in the Bhajan Kaur case:
“It is the duty and responsibility of the State to secure and safeguard the life and liberty of an individual from mob violence. It is not open to the State to say that the violations are being committed by private persons for which it cannot be held accountable. Riots more often than not take place due to weakness, laxity and indifference of the administration in enforcing law and order. If the authorities act in time and act effectively and efficiently, riots can surely be prevented. Message must go to the mischief mongers that the administration means business and their nefarious designs would be thwarted with an iron hand.”
Prevention Is Better Than Cure: As the court observed in the Mohd. Haroon case, state intelligence agencies must act with foresight and alert the state or district administration about communal tensions so that the concerned authorities can take immediate action like deploying forces or declining permissions to conduct events that are likely to incite violence.
Concluding with a quote by Mahatma Gandhi:
“The golden way is to be friends with the world and to regard the whole human family like members of one family. He who distinguishes between one's family and another's mis-educates the members of his own and opens the way for discord and irreligion.”[xxxvi]
Singh, Bhagat. “Class Consciousness can stop communal rioting: Bhagat Singh on religious violence”. The Wire, September 28, 2020. https://thewire.in/history/bhagat-singh-reader-extract-religious-riots.
Chowdhary, Adrija Roy. “Secularism: Why Nehru dropped and Indira inserted the S-word in the Constitution”. The Indian Express, June 4, 2020. https://indianexpress.com/article/research/anant-kumar-hegde-secularism-constitution-india-bjp-jawaharlal-nehru-indira-gandhi-5001085/.
Bhattacharya, Sabyasachi. “Secularism and the state”. Frontline, February 5, 2016. https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/secularism-and-the-state/article8123816.ece.
Staff Reporter. “CAA, stirs give rise to hate speech before riots: report”. The Hindu, October 6, 2020. https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/caa-stirs-gave-rise-to-hate-speeches-before-riots-report/article32779605.ece.
IANS. “Over INR. 21 cr. Disbursed to Delhi riot victims, 185 claims still pending”. Eastern Mirror, September 26, 2020. https://easternmirrornagaland.com/over-rs-21-cr-disbursed-to-delhi-riots-victims-185-claims-still-pending/.
Sharma, Jeevan Prakash. “Delhi Riots: Government calls bullet wound, ‘minor injury’, pays Rs. 20,000/- as compensation”. Outlook, September 19, 2020. https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-delhi-riots-govt-calls-bullet-wound-minor-injury-pays-rs-20000-as-compensation/360550.
Also see: Burman, Sourav Roy. “Rs. 750 for burnt restaurant, Rs. 8,500 for store: Delhi Assembly panel flags gaps in riot relief”. The Indian Express, September 18, 2020. https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/rs-750-for-burnt-restaurant-rs-8500-for-store-delhi-assembly-panel-flags-gaps-in-riot-relief-6600501/.
Also see: PTI, New Delhi, “Compensation Application of many Delhi riot victims rejected on ‘flimsy grounds’: Delhi Waqf Board”. Deccan Herald, September 18, 2020. https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/compensation-application-of-many-delhi-riot-victims-rejected-on-filmsy-grounds-delhi-waqf-board-889525.html.
Joshi, Vatsal and Ananya Kumar Singh. “Communal-Secular Dichotomy: Are the Communal Violence Bills adequate to tackle the ‘Frankenstein’s Monster’”. National Law Institute University Law Review (2015) 195, page 207.
PRS Legislative Research. “The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005”. Accessed October 15, 2020. https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-communal-violence-prevention-control-and-rehabilitation-of-victims-bill-2005-165/.
Amnesty International. “Justice, the victim- Gujarat state fails to protect women from violence”. Page 3, January 2005. https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/84000/asa200012005en.pdf.
National Foundation for Communal Harmony. “Project Assist”. Accessed October 15, 2020. https://nfch.nic.in/documents/Programmes/Project%20Assist/Project-Assist.pdf.
Comprehensive Website run by Gandhian Institutions: Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal and Gandhi Research Foundation. “Communal Harmony”. Accessed October 15, 2020. https://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap85.htm.
The Constitution of India
The Criminal Procedure Code
The Indian Penal Code
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Case Laws/Judicial decisions
Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and others W.P. (Civil) No. 404/2008, 79/2009, 396/2009 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 126/2012.
Mohd. Haroon and ors. v. Union of India and anr. (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 252.
Bhajan Kaur v. Delhi Administration through the Lt. Governor 1996 SCC Online Del 484
[i] Bhagat Singh, “Class Consciousness can stop communal rioting: Bhagat Singh on religious violence”, The Wire, September 28, 2020, https://thewire.in/history/bhagat-singh-reader-extract-religious-riots.
[ii] Adrija Roy Chowdhary, “Secularism: Why Nehru dropped and Indira inserted the S-word in the Constitution”, The Indian Express, June 4, 2020, https://indianexpress.com/article/research/anant-kumar-hegde-secularism-constitution-india-bjp-jawaharlal-nehru-indira-gandhi-5001085/.
[iii] Sabyasachi Bhattacharya, “Secularism and the state”, Frontline, February 5, 2016, https://frontline.thehindu.com/politics/secularism-and-the-state/article8123816.ece.
[iv] Article 13, Constitution of India, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf.
[v] Article 21, Constitution of India, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf.
[vi] Article 14, Constitution of India, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf.
[vii] Article 15, Constitution of India, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf.
[viii] Art. 300A, Constitution of India, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf.
[ix] Art. 51A, Constitution of India, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/COI-updated.pdf.
[x] “The Communal Violence (Prevention, Control and Rehabilitation of Victims) Bill, 2005”, PRS Legislative Research, accessed October 15, 2020, https://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-communal-violence-prevention-control-and-rehabilitation-of-victims-bill-2005-165/.
[xi] Vatsal Joshi, and Ananya Kumar Singh, “Communal-Secular Dichotomy: Are the Communal Violence Bills adequate to tackle the ‘Frankenstein’s Monster’”, National Law Institute University Law Review (2015) 195, page 207.
[xii] Joshi, Singh, “Communal-Secular”, 208.
[xiii] Joshi, Singh, “Communal-Secular”, 210.
[xiv]Joshi, Singh, “Communal-Secular”, 213.
[xv] “Justice, the victim- Gujarat state fails to protect women from violence”, Amnesty International, page 3, January 2005, https://www.amnesty.org/download/Documents/84000/asa200012005en.pdf.
[xvi] Amnesty International, “Gujarat state fails”, page 92.
[xvii] Amnesty International, “Gujarat state fails”, page 91.
[xviii] Amnesty International, “Gujarat state fails”, page 92.
[xix] Archbishop Raphael Cheenath S.V.D. v. State of Orissa and others W.P. (Civil) No. 404/2008, 79/2009, 396/2009 and W.P. (Crl.) No. 126/2012.
[xx] Mohd. Haroon and ors. v. Union of India and anr. (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 252.
[xxi] Section 357 A, Code of Criminal Procedure, “Victim Compensation Scheme”, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1974-02.pdf.
[xxii] Section 326 A, Indian Penal Code, “Voluntarily causing grievous hurt by using of acid, etc.”, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf.
[xxiii] Section 376 D, Indian Penal Code, “Intercourse by any member of the management or staff of a hospital with any woman in that hospital”, http://legislative.gov.in/sites/default/files/A1860-45.pdf.
[xxiv] Para 129, Mohd. Haroon and ors. v. Union of India and anr. (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 252.
[xxv] Staff Reporter, “CAA, stirs give rise to hate speech before riots: report”, The Hindu, October 6, 2020, https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/caa-stirs-gave-rise-to-hate-speeches-before-riots-report/article32779605.ece.
[xxvi] IANS, “Over INR. 21 cr. Disbursed to Delhi riot victims, 185 claims still pending”, Eastern Mirror, September 26, 2020, https://easternmirrornagaland.com/over-rs-21-cr-disbursed-to-delhi-riots-victims-185-claims-still-pending/.
[xxvii] IANS, “21 cr. Disbursed”.
[xxviii] IANS, “21 cr. Disbursed”.
[xxix] IANS, “21 cr. Disbursed”.
[xxx] Jeevan Prakash Sharma, “Delhi Riots: Government calls bullet wound, ‘minor injury’, pays Rs. 20,000/- as compensation”, Outlook, September 19, 2020, https://www.outlookindia.com/website/story/india-news-delhi-riots-govt-calls-bullet-wound-minor-injury-pays-rs-20000-as-compensation/360550.
Also see: Sourav Roy Burman, “Rs. 750 for burnt restaurant, Rs. 8,500 for store: Delhi Assembly panel flags gaps in riot relief”, The Indian Express, September 18, 2020, https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/rs-750-for-burnt-restaurant-rs-8500-for-store-delhi-assembly-panel-flags-gaps-in-riot-relief-6600501/.
Also see: PTI, New Delhi, “Compensation Application of many Delhi riot victims rejected on ‘flimsy grounds’: Delhi Waqf Board”, Deccan Herald, September 18, 2020, https://www.deccanherald.com/national/north-and-central/compensation-application-of-many-delhi-riot-victims-rejected-on-filmsy-grounds-delhi-waqf-board-889525.html.
[xxxi] Article 3 read with Article 7, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[xxxii] Article 8, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
[xxxiii] “Project Assist”, National Foundation for Communal Harmony, Accessed October 15, 2020, https://nfch.nic.in/documents/Programmes/Project%20Assist/Project-Assist.pdf.
[xxxv] (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 252.
[xxxvi] “Communal Harmony”, Comprehensive Website run by Gandhian Institutions: Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal and Gandhi Research Foundation, Accessed October 15, 2020, https://www.mkgandhi.org/momgandhi/chap85.htm.