Stop ‘big brother’ control over trafficking survivors’ funds: Calcutta High Court to legal services

The order added, “The maximum amount of compensation payable under the NLSA Scheme is much higher than that under the West Bengal Scheme. Further the minimum period prescribe under the NLSA Scheme for keeping a percentage of the compensation amount in fixed deposit is only 3 years.”

Survivors vs SLSA

According to the case records, one of the two women, a survivor of human trafficking, was awarded Rs 3 lakh as compensation, while the other woman was awarded Rs 4 lakh, comprising Rs 3 lakh compensation for trafficking and Rs 1 lakh for rape. In August 2019, the SLSA directed that 75 per cent of their compensation amount be deposited in a nationalised bank for 10 years, with 25 per cent available for use. The survivor challenged it before the Calcutta High Court.

Justices Arjit Banerjee and Apurba Sinha Ray stated that the survivor had every right to decide how to spend the amount.

In March 2020, a single judge of the high court, however, held that the West Bengal Victims’ Compensation Scheme, 2017, did not permit the SLSA to limit or control how an adult survivor must utilise the compensation granted. The SLSA appealed against the decision.

Advocates Kaushik Gupta and Siddhartha Chamaria, appearing for the survivors, argued that directing them to keep 75 per cent of the compensation locked for 10 years was not authorised by the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme, 2017. They said the SLSA has relied on the NLSA model schedule which had not been adopted into West Bengal’s own compensation scheme. They also argued that the scheme under the National Legal Services Authority (NLSA) provided a higher compensation compared to the state’s scheme.

The counsel appearing for SLSA argued that the compensation was for the rehabilitation of the survivors and they had the power to impose reasonable conditions on its disbursement. They added that keeping 75 per cent of the compensation in a bank would protect them from misusing the money and provide them a regular income.

It was argued that the SLSA is headed by the Chief Justice of the Calcutta High Court and the its second senior most judge. Since the best legal minds were behind the disputed order, it should be presumed that it was for the furtherance of justice.

Single judge’s order upheld

The court upheld the single judge’s order that SLSA had no authority to control or monitor the amount of compensation disbursed to an adult victim and the survivor had every right and liberty to decide how to spend the amount.

The court held that the West Bengal Victim Compensation Scheme does not authorise anybody to limit the utilisation of the compensation amount given to a victim. The member-secretary of SLSA could not have relied upon the NLSA scheme to direct that 75 per cent of the compensation amount be put in a fixed deposit account for 10 years.

The court said that the “big brother” approach of the disbursing authority should be shunned and the survivor should be free to spend the compensation money granted to her/him according to her/his decision. The court held that the right to make mistakes is part of personal liberty and freedom and cannot be arbitrarily curbed by the SLSA simply because it manages the compensation fund. It, therefore, dismissed the appeal.