The Delhi High Court has sought response from the Delhi Government and the Centre over a compensation petition filed by a victim of the communal riots that rocked the North East region of the national capital in February, 2020.
A Single-Judge Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao on Monday issued notice in the matter, which also challenges the ‘Delhi riots victim compensation scheme’ on grounds of being inadequate, arbitrary and discriminatory, and posted it for next hearing on April 19.
The instant petition has been filed by Advocates Kawalpreet Kaur and Haider Ali, on behalf of one Mohd. Ahmad, resident of Delhi’s Khajuri Khas area. The grievance of the petitioner was that his house and shop were burnt during the 2020 North-East Delhi riots, resulting in not just financial loss, but also a loss of his identity as the shop was associated with the family since 1977.
The plea pointed out that a sum of Rs 85,000 was received by the petitioner as compensation against damages and destruction caused to his shop. Alleging that the total financial losses suffered by the petitioner on account of the said incident amounts to over Rs 35 lakh, the plea stated that the amount received as yet was “completely inadequate”.
In light of the above, the plea sought release of compensation in accordance with the Delhi Government’s victim compensation scheme, as also to enhance the compensation being given under the scheme in proportion to the losses suffered by the victim.
Claiming that the petitioner was the first-hand victim of the violence and endured risk to his life and liberty due to the unabated violence which resulted due to the total collapse of law and order in the North-East district of Delhi, the plea read as under:
“It is the responsibility of the state to ensure that Right to Life and Liberty does not end up existing only on paper but is alive so that it promises the human dignity and basic human rights to the individuals that the constitutional framers had envisioned.”
During the hearing, Advocate Anuj Aggarwal, representing Delhi Government, informed the Court that compensation to the tune of Rs 7.5 lakh in respect of the house has already been given to one Mohd. Munis who happens to be the brother of the petitioner.
Per contra, Kaul submitted that the said compensation was made in respect of the first floor, where the petitioner’s brother resided and not qua the ground floor, which belonged to the petitioner.
Justice Rao directed the Delhi Government to clarify whether the amount alleged to be paid was in respect of the first floor or for the entire building.